Quashed

Elizabeth @ Gracy v. Deputy Director, Survey & Land Records

Kerala HC1 Jun 2016WP(C)/11930/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court addressed a refusal by survey authorities to transfer registry for part of the petitioner's property. It quashed an order dismissing the petitioner's appeal and directed the first respondent to reconsider the appeal and pass fresh orders within two months after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 20/12/10; directed first respondent to reconsider appeal with hearing and pass orders within two months.

Elizabeth @ Gracy Vs Deputy Director, Survey & Land Records — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/11TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 11930 of 2011 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

ELIZABETH @ GRACY, W/O.JOSEPH, KALIPARAMBIL VEEDU, CHELLANAM.P.O, GANAPATHIKKAD.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, (APPELLATE AUTHORITY), COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

2. SUPERINTENDENT, SURVEY & LAND RECORDS, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

3. HEAD SURVEYOR, RE-SURVEY OFFICE, SOUTH JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.S.SAJEEV

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 11930 of 2011 (M)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

P1TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3498/98 OF SRO, KOCHI

¶20

P2TRUE OCPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 23/6/99

¶21

P3TRUE COPY OF THE FIELD SKETCH IN RESPECT OF SURVEY NO.180 OF CHELLANAM VILLAGE

¶22

P4TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SURVEY ADALATH CONDUCTED BY THE RSPONDENTS

¶23

P5TRUE OCPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4/3/08 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE R3

¶24

P6TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO KOCHI THIRUMALA DEVASWOM

¶25

P7TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED Y THE R3

¶26

P8TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO.VII ISSUED BY THE R1

¶27

P9TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 22/3/10 OF THE R2

¶28

P10TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 29/7/2010 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT

¶29

P11TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/12/10 OF THE R1.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.V.ASHA J.

-------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.11930 of 2011

¶37

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

¶38

Dated this the 1^st day of June, 2016

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

The grievance of the petitioner is over the refusal on the part of the respondents in effecting transfer of registry in respect of the properties in survey No.6/4 of Chellanam Village, which was subsequently included in re-survey No.180/10 and 180/14. The transfer of registry was effected only in respect of the property included in 180/10 and not in 180/14, as per Ext.P9. Aggrieved by the refusal to effect transfer of registry in respect of the property included in re-survey No.180/14, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 appeal before the Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records producing Exts.A1 to A9 documents. But the Appellate Authority rejected his appeal, as per Ext.P11 order dated 20/12/2010, on the ground that he did not produce any documents in support of his claim.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶42

W.P.(C) No.11930 of 2011

¶43

¶44

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶45

On the basis of the sketch in respect of the property and the documents based on which the re-survey was effected, petitioner points out that his property extends over both re-survey No.180/10 and 180/14. From the copy of the appeal submitted by petitioner, which is produced as Ext P10 in this Writ Petition, it is seen that petitioner had produced the document No.3498 dated 29.09.1998, tax receipt, documents in respect of the proceedings before the Survey Adalath, the report and several other documents as contained in Exts.A1 to A9 along with the appeal, in support of his claim for transfer of registry. Therefore the rejection of the appeal on the ground that the petitioner did not produce documents cannot be sustained.

¶46

In the above circumstances, the first respondent shall re-consider the appeal and pass orders afresh with reference to the documents produced by the petitioner along with the appeal, after affording an opportunity of

¶47

W.P.(C) No.11930 of 2011

¶48

¶49

hearing to the petitioner. For the purpose of reconsideration, Ext.P11 is quashed. Orders shall be passed within a period of 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶50

With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶51

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶52

AS/01/06/16

Elizabeth @ Gracy v. Deputy Director, Survey & Land Records

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elizabeth @ Gracy v. Deputy Director, Survey & Land Records

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

Rajeswari K. Vs Badagara Co-Op. Rural Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Madar English School Vs District Educational Officer and Others

Rahmathulla Noufal E and Others Vs the State of Kerala and Another

M/S. Toughglass India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala and Others

Padmini Chindan Vs the District Collector,Kasaragod

C.K.Krishnakumari Vs the Principal Secretary to Government