Dismissed

P.P.Abdul Salam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Oct 2018OP(C)/230/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the Land Tribunal's order rejecting an application to correct the survey number under Article 227. The Court examined claims regarding land extent, tax receipts, and boundary descriptions but found the impugned order deserved no interference under supervisory jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner aggrieved by order dated 24.7.2014 dismissed without costs.

P.P.Abdul Salam Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018/25TH ASWINA, 1940

¶5

OP(C).No.230 of 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SM 2110/1976 of LAND TRIBUNAL, KASARGOD

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

P.P.ABDUL SALAM, AGED 56 YEARS S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, RESIDING AT KARUVACHERI, NILESHWAR VILLAGE, P.O.NILESHWAR, HOSDURG TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671314.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2 K.SREEDEVI AMMA,AGED 77 YEARS W/O.P.KANNAN, RESIDING AT SANGEETHA, KARUVACHERI, NILESHWAR VILLAGE, P.O.NILESHWAR, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 314.

¶13

3 ANJARA VEETTIL SANGEETHA, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.SREEDEVI AMMA, "SREEHARI", KARAPARAMBU, EAST HILL, KACHERI AMSOM, POST WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-673 005.

¶14

4 ANJOOTTAMBALAM VEERARKAVU DEVASWOM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, WEAVERS' COLONY, NILESHWAR VILLAGE, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD-671314.

¶15

5 KRISHNAN MOOTHA CHETTIYAR S/O.KORAN MADAYAN,AGED 75, RESIDING AT WEAVERS' COLONY, NILESHWAR VILLAGE AND POST, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD, PIN-671 314.

¶16

O.P.(C) No.230 of 2015

¶17

:: 2 ::

¶18

R4 BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN R2 AND R3 BY ADV.SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SRI.M.V.ANANDAN-SR.G.P.

¶21

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

O.P.(C) No.230 of 2015

¶23

:: 3 ::

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Challenging Ext.P13 order passed by the Land

¶26

Tribunal in an application submitted for correction of survey number, the petitioner came

¶27

up with this Original Petition.

¶28

The short facts of the case are as

¶29

follows: An extent of 26 cents of land was obtained under a kuzhikanam lease by the predecessor-in-interest of one Chiruthayi Amma. As per registered document No.479/1934, S.R.O., Hosdurg, dated 16.4.1934, the leasehold right was assigned in favour of Chiruthayi Amma and her sister Kunhakkathu, prior to the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. After the death of Kunhakkathu, under Ext.P2 document of the year 1969, the property was gifted by Chiruthayi Amma to her three daughters including respondent No.2. Later on, the other two daughters released their right over the property in favour of respondent No.2 in the year 1972 by executing Ext.P3 release

¶30

O.P.(C) No.230 of 2015

¶31

:: 4 ::

¶32

deed and Ext.P4 gift deed. On 3.8.1976, the Land Tribunal, Kasaragod passed Ext.P5 order allowing respondent No.2 to purchase the jenm right over the property. Consequent to Ext.P5 order, Ext.P6 purchase certificate was granted in respect of 7.29 Ares of property (18 cents) comprised in Sy.No.429/8. Subsequently, respondent No.2

¶33

settled the property to respondent No.3 under Ext.P7 settlement deed dated 22.4.2002 and in turn, respondent No.3 sold the property to the petitioner as per Ext.P8 document and thereby he obtained the right, title and interest over 18 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.429/8. He had also purchased the adjoining property belonged to one Lakshmi before the purchase of the property under Ext.P8. Later on, it was revealed that only 3¾ cents of property is available in Sy.No.429/8 and the balance extent which comes to 14¼ cents situates in Sy.No.429/5B. So, Ext.P10 correction application was submitted before the Land Tribunal, which was rejected by the Land Tribunal as per Ext.P13 order dated 24.7.2014. Aggrieved

¶34

by the said order, the petitioner came up with

¶35

O.P.(C) No.230 of 2015

¶36

:: 5 ::

¶37

this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶38

It is submitted by the learned counsel for

¶39

the petitioner that the rejection of the application for correction as per Ext.P13 order is in a gross violation of the jurisdiction vested with the Land Tribunal and the Land Tribunal failed to take note of the various basic tax receipts, exhibited as P9 series, evidencing payment of tax in respect of the registered holding of 18 cents. It is also submitted that when there is a dispute regarding survey number of the property, the boundary would prevail over the survey number and there is failure to apply the aforesaid settled legal position by the Land Tribunal which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is also submitted that the property which is lying on the northern side of the registered holding obtained by the petitioner, though in possession of Devaswom, is really a puramboke land held by the Devaswom and as such when there is reduction of extent in Sy.No.429/8

¶40

O.P.(C) No.230 of 2015

¶41

:: 6 ::

¶42

it has to be adjusted in order to satisfy the extent shown in Ext.P6 purchase certificate granted by the Land Tribunal. It was also brought to the notice of this Court the plan prepared in Sy.No.429/8 of Nileshwar Village, based on which it was argued that the property having an extent of 18 cents is located. There is no dispute that there is only an extent of 3.750 cents of property in Sy.No.429/8. It is also not in dispute that there existed a sub division plan even prior to the issuance of Ext.P6 purchase certificate. When there is a sub division plan, it is equivalent to and akin to a survey plan. In other words, the sub division plan would also act as a valid survey divisioning the property which are available in the respective sub divisions. Admittedly, an extent of 14.250 cents is not within Sy.No.429/8. The plan produced regarding Sy.No.429 would sufficiently show that there are various sub divisions to the property comprised in Sy.No.429. The property belonging to the respondent is shown as comprised in sub division 5B. Now the property as that of the petitioner is seen drawn both from

¶43

O.P.(C) No.230 of 2015

¶44

:: 7 ::

¶45

sub division No.8 as well as 5B. More specifically, an extent of 14.250 cents is drawn out of sub division No.5B. Needless to say that a correction application can be maintained only on establishing that mistakes crept in the order passed regarding the description of property or its survey number, boundary etc. for which no satisfactory evidence was adduced by the petitioner, except production of some basic tax receipts. Further, even going by the document-

¶46

the register for the year 1972, the eastern boundary of 18 cents of property is stated to be the property of Madayan Krishnan. In other words, on the eastern side, even as per the documents of title, the property belonging to Madayan Krishnan is situated. But now a property was drawn out of sub division No.5B which would make the eastern

¶47

boundary as the property of temple. This would show that as per description in the title, they are entitled the property lying on western side of the property of Madayan Krishnan and that they do not have any property constituting the temple property as its earlier boundary.

¶48

O.P.(C) No.230 of 2015

¶49

:: 8 ::

¶50

The present original petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I am afraid to what extent this Court can go into these aspects exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. But, going by the aforesaid discussions, it is very clear that the order impugned deserves no interference by this Court. Hence, the original petition deserves only a dismissal and I do so, but without costs. It is made clear that the parties are at liberty to seek any other remedy available if it is permissible under law as per lex fori lex locci, if it is within time and not barred under Section 11 CPC and the doctrine of res judicata.

¶51

Sd/

¶52

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

¶53

ahz/

¶54

O.P.(C) No.230 of 2015

¶55

:: 9 ::

¶56

APPENDIX

¶57

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶58

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED, DOC. NO. 479/1934, S R O HOSDURG,DTD 16/4/1934.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO.859 OF 1969,S.R.O.,KASARAGOD,DTD 19/9/1969.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED, DOC. NO.1764 OF 1972, S.R.O.,KASARAGOD, DTD. 30/10/1972.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO.1765 OF 1972, S.R.O., KASARAGOD,DTD 30/10/1972.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD IN S.M.NO.2110 OF 1976, DATED 3/8/1976.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.11879 OF 1976 ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD, DATED 10.11.1976.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.780 OF 2002, S.R.O., NILESHWAR,DTD 22/4/2002.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2160 OF 2012, S.R.O., NILESWAR, DATED 20/7/2012.
EXHIBIT P9(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECEIPT FOR THE LAND TAX PAID FOR 2011-12,DTD 8/12/2011.
EXHIBIT P9(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECEIPT FOR THE LAND TAX PAID FOR 2012-13,DTD 20/9/2012.
EXHIBIT P9(c)	TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECEIPT FOR THE LAND TAX PAID FOR 2013-14, DTD 8/4/2013.
EXHIBIT P9(d)	TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECEIPT FOR THE LAND TAX PAID FOR 2014-15, DTD 23/4/2014.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE LAND TRIBUNAL,KASARAGOD,DTD 30/4/2014.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY TRHE NILESHWAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, DATED 11.12.1997.

¶59

O.P.(C) No.230 of 2015

¶60

:: 10 ::

¶61

EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NILESHWAR, DATED 20.6.2014. EXT.P12(a) TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD IN I.A.NO.49 OF 2014 IN S.M.NO.2110 OF 1976, DATED 24.7.2014.

P.P.Abdul Salam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.P.Abdul Salam 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

Viswambharan Pillai Vs Mathukutty

J & P. Constructions Vs Ambujakshi Amma

P.v.Sasidharan Vs Nirman

Kunnath Narayanan Vs K.Sumitha Geethanath

Joy Xavier Vs Unnikrishnan Nair

K.R Ushasree Vs Sujir Ganesh Naik