Quashed

K.C.Thomas v. the State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC8 Nov 2011WP(C)/36714/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging an order regarding rectification of mistakes in re-survey records. The petitioner claimed property classified as public pond belonged to him. The Court refused to decide merits but directed the District Collector to treat the complaint as a revision petition under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, allowing for proper enquiry and

What did the court decide?

The order of the 5th respondent was quashed and the complaint directed to be treated as a revision petition under Section 13A of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act by the 2nd respondent for disposal

K.C.Thomas Vs the State of Kerala and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 36714 of 2010(L)

¶6

----------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-------------------------

¶9

K.C.THOMAS, KULANGARA HOUSE, EZHAKKAD POST, PALAKKAD DIST.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.THAMPAN THOMAS SRI.B.V.JOY SANKER SMT.JANCY ALEX

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

---------------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001

¶14

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD.PIN-678 001

¶15

3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY PALAKKAD.PIN-678 001

¶16

4. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD.PIN-678 005

¶17

5. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD.PIN-678 005

¶18

R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.R.SYAM KUMAR

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

sts

¶21

WP(C)NO.36714/2010

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶24

P1 COPY OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO.3743/2007 OF PARALI SUB REGISTRY DATED 29/10/2007.

¶25

P2 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 5/02/08.

¶26

P3 COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 11/02/2008.

¶27

P4 COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 15/10/2008.

¶28

P5 COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 7/11/2008.

¶29

P6 COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 30/09/2009.

¶30

P7 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C)NO.1929/2010 DATED 01/2/2010

¶31

P8 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD DATED 12/11/2010.

¶32

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

C.K. ABDUL REHIM,J.

¶38

W.P.(c) No. 36714 OF 2010

¶39

DATED THIS THE 8^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011

¶40

J U D G M E N T

¶41

The subject matter involved in this writ petition is with respect to rectification of a mistake allegedly crept in the re-survey records. According to the petitioner the property situated in Sy. No.153/1 and 153/2 in Mundoor II village in Palakkad District, having an extent of 5.21 Ares, is in the ownership and possession of the petitioner upon which he derived title by virtue of document No.3743/2007 of the Sub Registrar office, Parali. It is stated that, after purchase of the property, when the petitioner approached for effecting mutation in the revenue records it is realized that the property in question is included in the re-survey records as puramboke land comprised in re-sy No.446/3 of Block No.13. The petitioner thereupon submitted various applications before respondents 2 to 4 seeking to rectify the mistake. Since no action was taken, he had approached this court in W.P (c) No.1929/2010. Through Ext.P9 judgment this court disposed of the writ petition directing

¶42

W.P.(c) No.36714/2010 -2-

¶43

respondents 2 and 4 to consider merits of Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner after conducting due enquiry in the matter and to take appropriate actions to redress the grievance. Exhibit P8 is the order issued by the 5^th respondent pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P7 judgment. The Tahsildar observed that the property comprised in re-sy No.446/3 is not seen included in the document through which the petitioner claims title. Further, it is stated that since the property in question is a public pond as per the revenue records and since this court had not issued any direction to change the nature of the land, the request of the petitioner could not be granted.

¶44

The present writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P8. Petitioner inter alia seeks direction to declare that he is the absolute owner in possession of the property in question and also for a direction to effect mutation in revenue records.

¶45

From the facts and circumstances, it is evident that the claim of the petitioner is for rectification of a mistake alleged to have been crept in, while finalizing the

¶46

W.P.(c) No.36714/2010

¶47

-3-

¶48

re-survey records. In fact the competent authority ought to have considered the request on the basis of the fact as to whether the petitioner has got title or ownership with respect to the property in question, which is described in re-survey records as public pond (puramboke kulam). In other words, the authority concerned ought to have taken a decision as to whether the claim of the petitioner to rectify the alleged mistake in the re-survey records, is sustainable or not, and as to whether any correction can be effected in the re-survey records and in the revenue records, with respect to ownership or nature of the property. I notice that inspite of the direction issued in Ext.P7 judgment, such exercise has not been done by the 5^th respondent. In fact question arises as to whether the 5^th respondent is the competent authority to do such an exercise.

¶49

Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents pointed out that, once the re-survey records is finalized and it is carried on to the revenue records the 4^th respondent became 'functus officio' and he could not make any corrections. It is further pointed out that the competent

¶50

W.P.(c) No.36714/2010 -4-

¶51

authority is the District Collector or the District Superintendent of Survey and Land Records. Presumably, the Tahsildar had taken a decision in the matter only because the District Collector had forwarded Ext.P3 complaint for consideration of the 4^th respondent. But, I feel that the competent authority ought to have considered the grievance of the petitioner and taken a decision on merits. Therefore, I am proposing to dispose of this writ petition by relegating the matter to the competent authority.

¶52

Under the above mentioned circumstances the writ petition is disposed of quashing Ext.P8 order of the 5^th respondent and directing the 2^nd respondent to treat Ext.P3 complaint as a revision petition filed under Section 13A of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 and to dispose of the same, if necessary, after taking measurement of property through any competent authority in the Survey Department and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶53

The needful in this regard shall be done as expeditiously as possible within a period of 4 months from

¶54

W.P.(c) No.36714/2010

¶55

-5-

¶56

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion regarding merits of the claim of the petitioner or regarding his eligibility to get the rectification sought for.

¶57

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

¶58

AMG

¶59

True copy

¶60

P.A to Judge

K.C.Thomas v. the State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.C.Thomas v. the State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thomas George & Another Vs South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors.

P.Bharathan Vs City Union Bank Ltd. and 2 Others

Georgekutty Kunjeria & Another Vs the Corporation of Cochin & Others

The State Bank of India and 2 Others Vs Narniath Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals

Gracy Vs the Taluk Land Board

C.S.Sanal Vs State of Kerala