Allowed

Aakkal Ummer v. the Additional Tahsildar

Kerala HC5 Jul 2017WP(C)/1428/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the fixation of land boundaries was illegal as the mandatory prior notice in Form No.12 under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules was not issued. The beneficiary notice was quashed, and authorities were directed to repeat the process afresh.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P7 notice quashed; authorities directed to fix boundaries afresh after issuing notice in Form No.12 to all concerned.

Aakkal Ummer Vs the Additional Tahsildar — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2017/14TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 1428 of 2017 (C) -------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

AAKKAL UMMER, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN, AAKKAL HOUSE, N.S.S.COLLEGE P.O., MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 121.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI. SAJU S.A.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ERNAD TALUK, KACHERIPADY, MANJERI, PIN-676 121.

¶11

2. THE SURVEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SURVEY DIRECTOR, CIVIL STATION, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 001.

¶12

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KACHERIPADY, MANJERI, PIN-676 121.

¶13

4. ABDULLA, S/O.AVULAN HYDREW, AGED 54 YEARS, ALUVAN HOUSE, N.S.S. COLLEGE P.O., MANJERI, PIN-676 121.

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 1428 of 2017 (C)

¶16

5. SUHRABI, W/O.ABDULLA, ALUVAN HOUSE, N.S.S. COLLEGE P.O., MANJERI, PIN-676 121.

¶17

6. FAISEER ALULAN, S/O.ABDULLA, ALUVAN HOUSE, N.S.S. COLLEGE P.O., MANJERI, PIN-676 121.

¶18

R1-R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA R4-R6 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

WP(C).No. 1428 of 2017 (C)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PARTITION DEED NO.6640/2006 DATED 17.07.2006. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO.3634/2008 DATED 26.05.2008. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 04.04.2016. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF STOP MEMO NO.155/16 DATED 19.04.2016. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 26.04.2016 IN W.P[C]NO.15578/2015. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2016 IN W.P[C]NO.26790/2016. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶30

W.P.(C) No.1428 of 2017

¶31

Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2017

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Respondents 4 to 6 have earlier approached this Court and obtained Ext.P6 judgment directing the first respondent to identify and fix the boundaries of their property referred to in the writ petition in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act ('the Act') and the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules ('the Rules'). The case of the petitioner is that despite the positive direction issued by this Court in the said judgment to issue notice to all concerned before

¶34

W.P.(C) No.1428 of 2017

¶35

-2-

¶36

complying with the direction contained therein, the boundaries of the property of respondents 4 to 6 have been fixed by the authorities under the Act without notice to the petitioner who owns one of the adjacent properties. It is his case that thereafter he was issued Ext.P7 notice by the authorities directing him to show cause why the land records shall not be corrected in accordance with the fixation already made. According to the petitioner, he should have been issued notice prior to the fixation as provided for in the Rules and therefore, the proceedings commenced pursuant to Ext.P7 notice is illegal. The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 notice in this writ petition on that basis.

¶37

The learned Government Pleader, on

¶38

instructions, submitted that notice in Form No.12 of the Rules has not been issued to the petitioner before fixation

¶39

W.P.(C) No.1428 of 2017

¶40

-3-

¶41

of the boundaries of the property of respondents 4 to 6 was made.

¶42

Going by the provisions contained in the

¶43

Rules, notice has to be issued to all persons concerned in Form No.12 before fixing the boundaries, and notice in the nature of Ext.P7 in Form No.14 is contemplated only thereafter, if correction of the records is warranted.

¶44

In the said view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P7 notice is quashed and the authorities under the Act are directed to fix the boundaries of the property of respondents 4 to 6 afresh, after issuing notice to all concerned in Form No.12. It is also directed that if it is found that the records are liable to be corrected after the fixation, the same shall be corrected after issuing notice again to the petitioner and others in Form No.14. In the light of the direction already issued by this court in Ext.P6 judgment, there will a direction to the respondents

¶45

-4-

¶46

W.P.(C) No.1428 of 2017

¶47

concerned to comply with the direction aforesaid, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶50

bpr

Aakkal Ummer v. the Additional Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aakkal Ummer v. the Additional Tahsildar

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

Rajendran Vs M.G.Rajamanikyam

M.G.Ramachandran Nair Vs the State of Kerala

Charles T. David Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Paul Vs S.M.Vijayanand

Central Bank of India Vs Smt.Radhamani

N.v.Ashok Kumar Vs Government of Kerala