Allowed

K.C. Mathew Perumali v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Mar 2013WP(C)/8361/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed respondents to correct resurvey records and make necessary entries to reflect the correct property extent of 6 Acres 95 cents, citing the senior citizen petitioner's status, within one month of judgment receipt.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents 3 to 5 to correct resurvey records and make necessary entries regarding the correct extent of 6 Acres 95 cents within one month of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

K.C. Mathew Perumali Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/13TH PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 8361 of 2012 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. K.C. MATHEW PERUMALI, S/O.CHERIAN, PERUMALI HOUSE, 9/247, VELI, KOCHI-1.

¶8

2. CHERIAN PERUMALI, S/O.K.C. MATHEW PERUMALI, PERUMALI HOUSE, 9/247, VELI, KOCHI-1.

¶9

3. MANUAL PERUMALI, S/O.K.C.MATHEW PERUMALI, PERUMALI HOUSE, 9/247, VELI, KOCHI-1.

¶10

BY ADVS.SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA, SMT.P.K.RADHIKA.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KOZHIKODE-673 101.

¶14

3. RESURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, O/O.RESURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, BADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 104.

¶15

4. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, BADAKARA TALUK, BADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 101.

¶16

5. HEAD SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, BADAKARA TALUK, BADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT-673 101.

¶17

BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

rs.

¶20

WP(C).No. 8361 of 2012 (U)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶23

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.2105/95 DATED 05/10/1995 OF SRO KAVILUMPARA.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY THUS EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 26/05/2003.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION THUS SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 21/02/2011.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO.B.170/11 DATED 19/04/2011.

¶27

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION/RECORDS SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE NO.D1-4837/2011 DATED 29/4/2011.

¶28

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21/11/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND & 3RD PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH COPY TO THE 4TH & 5TH RESPONDENTS.

¶29

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J

¶34

W.P.(C). NO. 8361 OF 2012

¶35

Dated this the 04^th day of March, 2013

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The petitioners have approached this Court for a direction to the respondents 4 and 5 to consider the application Ext. P3 for effecting the changes in the records pursuant to the measurement conducted on 28.10.2010 with reference to the property described in Ext. P1 and also to consider and pass orders in Ext. P6.

¶38

The factual situation which arises in the case would

¶39

disclose that the wife of the 1^st petitioner and his brother had jointly purchased 7 Acres of land as per document dated 22.04.1977 of SRO Kavilumpara. When a resurvey was conducted, instead of 7 Acres the property was shown only as 6 Acres 45 cents. The owners entered into a partition in the year

¶40

When a measurement was taken through a private surveyor it was found that the total extent was 6 Acres 95 cents instead of 6 Acres 45 cents. Ext. P1 is the Partition Deed. The

¶41

legal heir of the owner of the land namely the 1^st petitioner herein

¶42

W.P. (C) NO. 8361 OF 2012

¶43

¶44

submitted an application to the 5^th respondent for measurement. The property was measured and on the basis of measurement the 1^st petitioner submitted an application before the 5^th respondent for correcting the survey records. Ext. P3 is the said application. The 3^rd respondent replied by way of Ext.P4 and indicated that the report relating to the measurement had been transferred to the 4^th respondent to take action in the matter.

¶45

Still nothing was done in the matter and therefore Ext. P6 representation was given to the District Collector and since no action was forthcoming this writ petition is filed for appropriate directions in the matter.

¶46

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that during the pendency of the writ petition, necessary survey had been conducted by the Thahsildar and they are convinced about the fact that the property is having an extent of 6 Acres 95 cents. But still according to the learned counsel for the petitioners no action is taken by the 4^th respondent to make necessary corrections in the resurvey records and therefore appropriate directions are to be given to the 4^th respondent to complete the the survey procedures and to

¶47

W.P. (C) NO. 8361 OF 2012

¶48

¶49

make arrangements for correcting the resurvey records in that fashion.

¶50

The learned Government Pleader on instruction

¶51

submits that in so far as Ext. P6 is pending before the District Collector, being the appellate authority, District Collector can interfere in the matter and issue appropriate directions. Though such an approach could be appreciated, having regard to the fact that the 1^st petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 80 years and having regard to the fact that the 5^th respondent had already completed the survey, it will be appropriate to direct the respondents 3 to 5 to take appropriate action in this regard to correct the resurvey records and to make necessary entries within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶52

sd/-

¶53

A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE

¶54

DCS

K.C. Mathew Perumali v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.C. Mathew Perumali v. State of Kerala

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

Pushpalatha Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

P.P.Raghavan Nair Vs the Kozhikode Corporation

Bindu C.V. Vs the Manager, Chami Ayyer High School

Deepika Non-Journalist Staff Union Vs Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad

H.Salim Vs the Assistant Labour Officer

K.C.Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala