Disposed

Francis E.C v. the District Collector

Kerala HC13 Mar 2017WP(C)/698/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges survey demarcation proceedings initiated by the District Survey Superintendent during a pending civil suit regarding land encroachment. The Court held that the matter pertains to the trial court's jurisdiction and disposed of the petition without interfering in the survey process.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of holding that the demarcation proceedings pursuant to the notice issued to the petitioner will be guided by the suit proceedings.

Francis E.C Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/22ND PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 698 of 2015 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

FRANCIS E.C

¶8

S/O.ELUVATHINGAL CHAKKUNNY, CHOVOOR DESOM, VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL LANE, AYYANTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR 680 003.

¶12

2. THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE OF SURVEY & LAND RECORDS, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL LANE, AYYANTHOLE P.O, THRISSUR 680 003.

¶13

3. CHERPU GRAMA PANCHAYATH CHERPU P.O, THRISSUR 680 561. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

4. AVINSSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH PERINCHERY P.O, THRISSUR 680 306. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

R4 BY ADV. SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS R3 BY ADVS. SRI.M.ANIL KUMAR

¶16

SMT.PREETHI K.PURUSHOTHAMAN R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 698 of 2015 (J)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH OF FIELD NO.357 OF CHOVOOR VILLAGE DATED 19.8.89 ISSUED BY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND RECORDS.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 3068/13 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR DATED 4.7.13.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2(A). COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2 PLAINT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.7.13 IN IA 9115/13 IN OS 3068/13 OF MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR.

¶25

EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE FIELD INSPECTION NOTICE NO.1639/14 DATED 17.12.14 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P4(A). COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4 NOTICE.

¶27

EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.12.14 ISSUED BY ADV. ROBIN LOUIS TO 2ND RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER.

¶28

EXHIBIT P5(A).COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P5 NOTICE.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶34

W.P.(C) No.698 of 2015

¶35

Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2017

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Respondents 3 and 4 and their men attempted to encroach

¶38

into petitioner's property to widen the road on its south. Thereupon, petitioner has filed Ext.P2 suit before the Munsiff's Court, Thrissur, which is pending as OS No.3068/2013, apparently, for fixation of boundaries and allied reliefs. It is submitted that, the Munsiff court had granted an order of temporary injunction against the trespass and waste. However, under direction from the first respondent, second respondent District Survey Superintendent issued a notice for field measurement on 17.12.2014, which according to the petitioner is after the filing of the suit. Even though petitioner has issued a lawyer notice, the second respondent went ahead with the demarcation proceedings and laid demarcation stones encroaching into the suit property for widening the road. It is thus challenging the action initiated by the second respondent during the pendency of the suit, this writ petition is filed.

¶39

Second respondent has filed a statement refuting the

¶40

W.P.(C) No.698 of 2015

¶41

¶42

allegations, claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions it is stated that, the second respondent has only examined and fixed the boundaries of 'puramboke' panchayath road comprised in survey No.57/1 of Chovoor Village and in no way interfered with the petitioner's property. Therefore, second respondent seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

¶43

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and counsel for respondents 3 and 4 I am of the considered opinion that the sole question to be considered is whether any manner of interference is required to the notice issued by the second respondent for conducting demarcation of the property, evident from Ex.P4 dated 17.12.2014. From the statement filed by the second respondent it is categoric ad clear that, the second respondent has attempted to find out the puramboke properties in accordance with the requisition made by the panchayath. Even if the property in question is a subject matter of the suit nothing stands in the way of the second respondent in demarcating the property, after issuing sufficient notice to a property holder, which is a necessary corollary provided under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act and Rules. Admittedly, petitioner was issued with Ext.P4

¶44

W.P.(C) No.698 of 2015

¶45

¶46

notice even though petitioner has not participated in the said proceedings. Evidently, these are all matters to be decided by the trial court in the suit specified above and I do not think that at this point of time an interference to the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P4 is required.

¶47

Therefore, leaving open the liberty of the respective parties to contest in the suit proceedings this writ petition can be given a quietus. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of holding that whatever proceedings initiated by the second respondent and attained finality pursuant to Ext.P4 will be guided by the suit proceedings, if the property involved in the suit proceedings and Ext.P4 proceedings are one and the same.

¶48

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶51

dlk/13/3/

Francis E.C v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Francis E.C v. the District Collector

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

Dr.Bobby Iype Vs Dr.Ramla Beevi

Rojer Mathew Vs the Kerala State Construction Corporation Limited

R. Neetha Vs the Registar General

M.Nsreenath Vs S.S.Sreejayaya

Haridasan Vs Somanathan

C.K.Sathyan Vs M.G.Rajamanickam