Disposed

M.V Francis Oommen v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jul 2018WP(C)/12985/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged alleged erroneous recording of his property as puramboke land and threatened eviction. Court directed Tahsildar to consider correction application with hearing opportunity and survey, stay coercive action, and dispose within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Tahsildar to consider correction application, conduct survey with notice, stay coercive action under notices, and dispose within three months.

M.V Francis Oommen 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 ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).NO.12985 OF 2018

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

M.V.FRANCIS OOMMEN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.OOMMEN, MELAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PODIYADI P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.CHERIAN GEEVARUGHESE SRI.P.HARIDAS SRI.R.B.BALACHANDRAN SRI.RENJI GEORGE CHERIAN SRI.P.C.SHIJIN

¶9

RESPONDENTS

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶11

2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689101.

¶12

3. THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689101.

¶13

4. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, THIRUVALLA, PIN-689101.

¶14

5. NEDUMPRAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PODIYADI P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689110.

¶15

6. VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDUMPRAM VILLAGE OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689110.

¶16

R5 BY ADVS. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.

¶17

SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH R1-R4 & R6 BY SHRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-072018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

:2:

¶20

WP(C).No. 12985 of 2018 (W)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE OLD SURVEY PLAN PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTIES DATED 09-01-2018.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER DATED 09-01-2018.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT ALONG WITH RECEIPT DATED 17-1-2018.
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY PLAN SHOWING THE INCORRECT SUBDIVISION OF 402/9, CREATING BY CARVING OUT PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE RESURVEY PLAN SHOWING THE PROPERTY IN RESURVEY NO.403/4 AND 5 UNDATED
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE RESURVEY PLAN SHOWING _PURAMBOKE THODU_IN 401/14 UNDATED.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.B8-12633/2005 DATED 11-12-2008.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 31-5-2017.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 7-7-2017.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 26-12-2017.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 4-4-2018.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 4-4-2018.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

vgd/18.07.18

PA TO JUDGE

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ======================== W.P.(C)No.12985 of 2018

¶29

========================= Dated this the 11^th day of July, 2018

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioner claims that he is having properties in old Survey Nos.106/1, 106/2 and 106/10 of Nedumpram Village, Thiruvalla Taluk, Pathanamthitta Revenue District and that adjacent to his property there is a puramboke thodu situated in old Survey No.106/3. The petitioner's case is that after the resurvey, 1Ares of petitioner's property was wrongly left out and incorporated in new sub-division. The said piece of land is essential for the beneficial enjoyment of the other properties of the petitioner and that even in the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner, were in possession of the said property. Since there was no cultivation for quite some years, the said piece of land remains reclaimed by nature. That the said piece of land has been wrongly incorporated in the Basic Tax Register (B.T.R) as bhoostithivazhi and the same has now been interpolated as “ nalathuvazhi or thodu ”, it is averred. The petitioner would assert

¶32

W.P.(C)No.12985 of 2018

¶33

¶34

that it is not a puramboke. To fortify the said contention, the petitioner would place reliance on an order of the Government which according to him would make it clear that land described as bhoostithivazhi or nalathuvazhi is not a puramboke . That the petitioner later received Ext.P-8 notice dated 31.05.2017 issued by the 3^rd respondent Tahsildar (Land Records), Thiruvalla alleging that he had encroached into the puramboke land. The petitioner had already filed objection to the same stating that there is no puramboke . Further, that the 5^th respondent-Nedumpram Grama Panchayath has also issued Ext.P-10 notice dated 26.12.2017 proposing to evict the petitioner therefrom. The petitioner would state that he has filed Ext.P-12 application dated 04.04.2018 before the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar (Land Records), Thiruvalla Taluk seeking correction of revenue and survey records so as to delete the sub-division and the alleged erroneous/wrong entries as stated herein above. Petitioner's apprehension is that before considering Ext.P-12 application, coercive action pursuant to the impugned Exts.P-8 and P-10 notices would be taken. It is in the light of these factual averments, the petitioner has filed the instant

¶35

W.P.(C)No.12985 of 2018

¶36

¶37

Writ Petition with the following prayers:

¶38

“(a)May declare that private properties will not automatically become government land or puramboke on resurvey without surrender or acquisition.

¶39

(b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 3^rd respondent to rectify mistakes in survey and revenue records pertaining to petitioner's properties in ownership and possession of the petitioner by considering Ext P12 application on merits after affording an opportunity to petitioner being heard and may direct respondents to keep Exts. P8 and P10 in abeyance till such time.

¶40

¶41

2. Heard Sri.P.Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the

¶42

writ petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Sr.Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents 1 to 4 and 6 and Sri.V.Sajith Kumar, learned counsel appearing for R5-Grama Panchayath.

¶43

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, it is ordered in the interest of justice, that the 3^rd respondentTahsildar will take up for consideration, the grievances of the petitioner in Ext.P-12 application/representation dated 04.04.2018 and after affording the reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, will take necessary steps so as to

¶44

W.P.(C)No.12985 of 2018

¶45

¶46

consider the redressal of those grievances and pass appropriate orders thereon, on the request made by the petitioner in that application. While rendering that decision, the 3^rd respondentTahsildar may conduct survey and measurement of the property in question and if such survey and measurement has not so far been done with due notice to the petitioner, then it shall be ensured that such survey and measurement is done by the revenue and survey officials concerned only after due notice to the petitioner. The petitioner's specific contention that there is a Government Order wherein it has been declared by the Government that land described as bhoostithivazhi or nalathuvazhi is not a puramboke land should also be duly adverted to and considered by the 3^rd respondent Tahsildar. It is for the petitioner to make available a copy of the said Government Order before the 3^rd respondentTahsildar for consideration in that regard. Until orders are passed on Ext.P-10 representation as aforestated, further steps pursuant to the impugned Exts.P-8 and P-10 notices will sand deferred. Action in the matter as aforestated should be finalised and orders should be passed by the 3^rd respondent on Ext.P-12 representation,

¶47

W.P.(C)No.12985 of 2018

¶48

¶49

without much delay, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment.

¶50

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶51

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶52

vgd/13.07.18

M.V Francis Oommen v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.V Francis Oommen 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanesh Vs the Inspector General of Registration

Thomson @ Tomy Vs the State of Kerala

Divine Trust Vs State of Kerala

Deepthy Joy Vs the District Collector, Wayanad

Aleyamma Johnson Vs the Land Tribunal

K.v.Kuriakose Vs District Collector, Ernakulam