Dismissed

Shyamala Devi, D/O.Janaki Amma v. the District Survey Superintendent

Kerala HC16 Feb 2015WP(C)/16839/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged encroachment of puramboke land by the 4th respondent and sought survey. After State submission that the land was excluded from the petitioner's possession in the final survey, the court held no proceedings were necessary.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed after Government Pleader submitted that no excess land was found in petitioner's possession following survey.

Shyamala Devi, D/O.Janaki Amma Vs the District… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/27TH MAGHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 16839 of 2012 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHYAMALA DEVI, AGED 53 YEARS, D/O.JANAKI AMMA, KIDANGANNARATHU VEEETTIL, ALA SOUTH, ALA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR-689 126.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, ALAPUZHA - 688 001.

¶11

2. THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA - 689 121.

¶12

3. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, CHENGANNUR, ALAPUZHA - 689 121.

¶13

4. VIJAYAKUMARI, AGED 61 YEARS,

¶14

D/O.GOURI AMMA, ONAMPALLIL HOUSE,

¶15

ALA P.O., ALAPUZHA - 689 126.

¶16

R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

mbr/

¶19

WP(C).No. 16839 of 2012 (D)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶22

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

¶23

EXHIBITS P1: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER, DATED 28.11.2008.

¶24

EXHIBITS P2: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.2735 OF 2009, DATED 27.01.2009.

¶25

EXHIBITS P3: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INFORMATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 26.05.2009.

¶26

EXHIBITS P4: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INFORMATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 24.09.2011.

¶27

EXHIBITS P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 12.07.2012.

¶28

EXHIBITS P6: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION, DATED 17.07.2012.

¶29

EXHIBITS P7: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 17.07.2012.

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 16839 of 2012

¶36

Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2015

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

Alleging that the 4^th respondent encroached upon a 'puramboke', the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶39

The petitioner alleges that the 4^th respondent made encroachment upon a 'river puramboke' in Old Survey No.237/4 (Re.Sy.No.257/1) of the Ala Village, Chengannur Taluk. According to the petitioner, she and her predecessors have been using the said 'puramboke' land for their ingress and egress to reach the public road; and the 4^th respondent obstructed the right of the petitioner; and therefore, she approached respondents 1 and 2 to demarcate the river puramboke. She also points out that this Court, as per Ext.P2 judgment, directed the 1^st respondent herein to take necessary action on the complaint of the petitioner within six weeks. The petitioner alleges that after 3½ years, the 3^rd respondent proposed to conduct the survey on the disputed land on

¶40

..2..

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 16839 of 2012

¶42

20.07.2012, for which, notice was issued to the petitioner only on 16.07.2012. According to the petitioner, though it appears that the 'puramboke' land has not been assigned to anybody, due to some mistake in the resurvey plan, the same is wrongly included with property in Re.Sy.No.263/1 of the same village. It is also alleged that in order to help the 4^th respondent, the 3^rd respondent is going to conduct survey on 20.07.2012 on the basis of the resurvey plan. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶43

This Court, by interim order dated 19.07.2012, ordered that it is open to the petitioner to produce the old survey plans also for the measurement and it is up to the Taluk Surveyor to conduct a proper survey after considering various aspects.

¶44

In the counter affidavit filed by the State, it is specifically contended that the property, which is now in the possession of the 4^th respondent, was originally assigned to the ancestor of the 4^th respondent as per

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 16839 of 2012

¶46

..3..

¶47

assignment in LA 314/58/Ala dated 25.10.1966. According to the respondent State, as per old village records, Sy.No.237/4 of Ala Village was recorded as 'puramboke' and it is now included in Re.Sy.No.257/1 of the same village.

¶48

During the course of argument, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that subsequent to the direction by this Court, the properties have been surveyed by the Taluk Surveyor on the basis of the survey plans and no excess land (other than the allotted to the 4^th respondent) is found in possession of the 4^th respondent at present.

¶49

In the light of the said submission, this Court is of the view that it is not necessary to proceed with this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is closed recording the aforesaid submission.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶52

bka/-

Shyamala Devi, D/O.Janaki Amma v. the District Survey Superintendent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamala Devi, D/O.Janaki Amma v. the District Survey Superintendent

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annamma Scaria.P. Vs P. Rajendran

Parambil Moideen Vs Parambil Kunheedu

Arun K.Pavithran Vs Tahsildar, Taliparamba

St.Michael'S Public School, Thirumarayoor Vs State

Jijo Mathai Vs the Village Officer

Saraswathy Amma Vs Tahsildar