Disposed

Mary Celin Thomas v. Directorate of Survey and Land Records

Kerala HC2 Jul 2018WP(C)/19623/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the correct authority for rectifying survey record errors and the reliance on a contradictory Form 14 notice. The court directed the appropriate authority to examine the representation and decide on correcting the survey details after affording an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the appropriate competent authority (District Survey Superintendent or Taluk Surveyor) to examine the petitioners' representation regarding survey errors and Form 14 discrepancies, afford an

Mary Celin Thomas Vs Directorate of Survey and Land Records — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2018 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 19623 of 2018 -----------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

1 MARY CELIN THOMAS, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.JOSEPH THOMAS,KUNNEL HOUSE, CHUNAYAKUZHIPPUKARA, MATTAMPALAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MANUAL LUCKOSE, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LUCKOSE,POONDIKKULAM HOUSE, 14/208 B,SEZ P.O.,THRIKKAKKARA,ERNAKULAM.

¶8

2 REENAKUNCHERIYA, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.KUNCHERIYA THOMAS, ETTAPARAYIL HOUSE, VENNALA P.O.,KOCHI -28.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.SANJITH SMT.K.JASMIN BABY SMT.C.S.SINDHU KRISHNAH SMT.JEENSHA CHACKO SMT.ASHI SUKUMARAN SRI.R.SASITHARAN SRI.B.R.ANEES SMT.CHARUTHA BHAIJU SMT.P.S.ANJU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. DIRECTORATE OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, SURVEY BHAVAN, VAZHUTHACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶12

2. DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682030.

¶13

3. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM - 682 041.

¶14

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKALA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM - 682 021.

¶15

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SAIGI JACOB PALATTY

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.V.

¶18

WP(C).No. 19623 of 2018 (C)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.01.2016 IN W.P.C. 738/2016 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.P.C. 19763/2014 DATED 01.08.2014.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 13.05.2015 SKETCH PREPARED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.06.2015.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 08.07.2015 BEARING NO.G3 2530/15 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 22.09.2015.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.10.2015 ISSUED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 14 NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE PETITIONERS TO FORM 14 NOTICE.

¶22

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL ---------------------

¶23

/TRUE COPY/ K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE 5.07.2018

¶24

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶25

==================

¶26

W.P.(C).No. 19623 of 2018

¶27

==================

¶28

Dated this the 2^nd day of July, 2018

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioners claim to be in ownership and possession of certain properties situated within the limits of Vazhakkala village coming within the jurisdiction of the 2^nd respondent District Survey Superintendent, Ernakulam. It is the case of the petitioners that they are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in taking appropriate steps on the representation submitted by them under the provisions of the Survey Manual and Kerala Survey & Boundaries Act seeking correction in the resurvey records to rectify the mistakes that have crept in during the resurvey of the property lying in Re.Survey No.91/1 (Old Sy.No.130/1-2) Block No.9, Vazhakkala Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam revenue district. The petitioners would submit that a bare perusal of Ext.P-3 sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor, Kanayannur Taluk, would make it clear that mistakes have crept in during resurvey, since property now demarcated as petitioners' property takes in a road and other properties, which are actually not owned by them and whereas the properties, which they are entitled to as per the tittle deeds are included in other resurvey numbers. The petitioners would point out that they have been paying

¶31

¶32

income tax for the properties in question, which are not actually owned by them as per the title deeds. That Ext.P-4 representation was preferred to the 2^nd respondent and a reply was sent as per Ext.P-5 letter dated 8.7.2015 intimating that mistakes have crept in during the resurvey and that for redressal the petitioners' grievance Ext.P-4 representation was forwarded to the Tahsildar concerned. But that despite directions issued by this Court in Ext.P-1 judgment dated 8.1.2016 in W.P.(C).No.738/2016, proceedings on the applications preferred by the petitioners have not yet completed. That petitioners would contend that there are no valid grounds for protracting the proceedings by the 1^st and 2^nd respondents and that till date, no effective steps are taken by the respondents for rectifying the errors in the survey numbers, etc. The petitioners would pointedly urge that the impugned Ext.P-9 Form 14 notice issued under Rule 58 of the Rules by the Taluk Surveyor is erroneous and that it goes against Ext.P-3 sketch prepared by none other than the Taluk Surveyor concerned. That by Ext.P-3 the properties of the petitioners actually happened to fall within survey No.95/1 and that there are contradictions in the data given in Ext.P-9 regarding the survey No. etc. vis-a-vis Ext.P-3 sketch. That the petitioners have now submitted Ext.P-10 representation dated 27.4.2016 to the Taluk Surveyor

¶33

¶34

concerned requesting that the abovesaid errors that have crept in Ext.P-9 Form 14 notice issued be corrected on the basis of the details shown in Ext.P-3 sketch and that correct and proper Form 14 notice should be issued in order to proceed further in the matter. The petitioners would further point out that the authority competent to redress of the grievance of the petitioners is the 2^nd respondent District Survey Superintendent and that the petitioners had submitted Ext.P-10 representation to the Taluk Surveyor concerned only because it was that officer who had Ext.P-9 Form 14 notice. The prayers in this Writ Petition are as follows:

¶35

“i) To issue a writ of mandamus and command respondents 1 and 2 to rectify the mistakes in the survey records and demarcate the boundaries of the properties lying in Re-Sy.No.95/1 (Old Sy.No.130/1-2) Block No.9, Vazhakala Village belonging to the petitioners in accordance with their title deeds.

¶36

ii) To pass any other and such other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to pass in the nature and circumstances of the case.

¶37

Heard Sri.R.Sanjith, learned counsel appearing for the

¶38

petitioners and the Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

¶39

In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is ordered that in case the 2^nd respondent District Survey Superintendent is the competent authority to deal with the grievance of the petitioners, then the petitioners may prefer a fresh representation in that regard before

¶40

¶41

that authority and the 2^nd respondent will examine the grievances of the petitioners and after affording an reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners' authorised representative or counsel, if any, will render a considered decision thereon dealing with the specific contention of the petitioners that the details regarding the survey numbers shown in Ext.P-9 Form 14 are liable to be corrected on the basis of the survey numbers shown in Ext.P-3 sketch. Orders in this regard shall be passed by the 2^nd respondent District Survey Superintendent on the abovesaid representation that may be filed by the petitioners, within one month from the date on which the said representation is filed before that authority along with the certified copy of this judgment. If, on the other hand, the authority competent to redress the grievances of the petitioners made out in Ext.P-10 representation is the Taluk Surveyor, Kanayannur Taluk, then the above direction for consideration of the representation is to be effected by that authority, by taking necessary action on Ext.P-10 representation, as aforesaid. If, after such decision is rendered by the aforesaid competent authority, it is found that the details and data shown in Ext.P-9 Form 14 Notice are required to be corrected, then necessary steps for issuance of such corrected Form 14 Notice should also be effected by the competent authority.

¶42

¶43

The Registry will forward copies of this judgment to all the respondents in this Writ Petition and the Taluk Surveyor, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam district, for information and necessary action, at the cost of the petitioners.

¶44

With these observations and directions, the aforecaptioned Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

sdk+

¶47

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶48

///True Copy///

¶49

P.S. to Judge

Mary Celin Thomas v. Directorate of Survey and Land Records

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mary Celin Thomas v. Directorate of Survey and Land Records

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

K.J. Joseph Vs the Ramankary Grama Panchayath

Psn Educational & Charitable Trust Vs State of Kerala

Meenakshi Vs Inspector of General of Registration

Saleena Beevi Vs the State of Kerala

Vineeshkumar Vs State of Kerala

Bindu Vs the District Collector