Writ Appeal dismissed against a measurement notice. The Court held that title disputes were pending in a reference before the High Court, rendering the petitioner's title uncertain at that stage, and thus the notice did not infringe rights.
Writ Appeal dismissed; no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2013/12TH ASHADHA, 1935
WA.No. 978 of 2013 () IN WP(C).11112/2013
------------------------------------------JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11112/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 23-05-2013
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SHAHUL HAMEED KANJICKAL VEETTIL, ADINADU SOUTH MURI, ADHINADU VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY.
BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
THE TALUK SURVEYOR TALUK OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM.
BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.I.DAVIS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A. NO.978/13
APPENDIX
APPELLANT'S EXTS.:
ANNEXURE A: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.PB168/13 DATED 28.6.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT & ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
RESPONDENT'S EXTS.: NIL.
Srd
(True copy)
P.S. To Judge.
MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. & K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
W.A. No.978 of 2013
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2013
Judgment
Vinod Chandran, J.
The petitioner was before the learned Single Judge claiming that Ext.P1 notice, wherein a measurement was notified by the respondent, is not legal in so far as a R.S.A. is pending before this Court with respect to the very same property. From the materials on record and the submissions made before the Court, it is evident that the suit was filed for declaration of title and it was decreed and the same was reversed in appeal. The petitioner has filed R.S.A. before this Court, which is still pending. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has any title over the property as such at this stage. Ext.P1 notice issued by the respondent is only for measurement of property to fix boundary, which the petitioner can always challenge before the civil court and which would not in any manner decide the title or possession of the property. The writ petitioner has also not impleaded the person under whose instance Ext.P1 notice has
W.A.978/13
2
been sent. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is not liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE.
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.
srd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a measurement notice issued by the respondent is legal in the face of a pending reference for specific advice regarding the title to the same property.
Shahul Hameed Kanjickal Veettil
The Taluk Surveyor Taluk Office Karunagappally
Dr. Manjula Chellur
K. Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
