Dismissed

Antony Cheeku v. the Commissioner, Land Revenue

Kerala HC29 Nov 2018WP(C)/20331/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a survey sketch prepared to determine encroachment on Government land, arguing officials failed to measure private property boundaries as directed. The Court held that protecting Government land boundaries is sufficient; private boundaries must only be measured if anomalies arise, directed to Revenue officers for grievances.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners advised to approach Revenue Divisional Officer or District Survey Superintendent regarding boundary grievances.

Antony Cheeku Vs the Commissioner, Land Revenue — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No.20331 of 2016

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 ANTONY CHEEKU

¶8

MULAVUKADU P.O., NEAR VILLAGE OFFICE-682 504.

¶9

2 CHERIYAKADAVIL JAIN ANTONY MULAVUKADU P.O., NEAR VILLAGE OFFICE-682 504.

¶10

3 DOMENIC D'SELVA

¶11

KONJATTU HOUSE, MULAVUKADU P.O., NEAR VILLAGE OFFICE-682 504.

¶12

4 GEORGE M.

¶13

MAROTTI PARAMBI HOUSE, MULAVUKADU P.O.,

¶14

NEAR VILLAGE OFFICE-682 504.

¶15

5 ANTONY

¶16

MAROTTI PARAMBI HOUSE, MULAVUKADU P.O., NEAR VILLAGE OFFICE-682 504.

¶17

6 SOORYA

¶18

NARAYANAN PUNATHIL HOUSE, MULAVUKADU P.O., NEAR VILLAGE OFFICE-682 504.

¶19

7 SANNO MORERA

¶20

KADEPARAMBIL HOUSE, MULAVUKADU P.O., NEAR VILLAGE OFFICE-682 504.

¶21

8 AJITH MADHAVAN

¶22

KOVILAKATHU HOUSE, MULAVUKADU P.O., NEAR VILLAGE OFFICE-682 504.

¶23

9 ANDREWS PODUTHAS

¶24

PADATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MULAVUKADU P.O., NEAR VILLAGE OFFICE-682 504.

¶25

10 RAPHEL

¶26

PARAMBOLATH HOUSE, MULAVUKADU P.O., NEAR VILLAGE OFFICE-682 504.

¶27

BY ADVS.

¶28

SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN

¶29

W.P.(C) No.20331/2016

¶30

¶31

SRI.A.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA

¶32

RESPONDENTS:

¶33

1 THE COMMISSIONER LAND REVENUE OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶34

2 DIRECTOR SURVEY SURVEY DEPARTMENT, VAZHUTHAKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶35

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU.

¶36

4 THE TAHSILDAR KANAYANNUR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM.

¶37

5 SWYANANDAN KOCHILATH HOUSE, MULAVUKADU P.O.

¶38

6 SIMON, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, MULAVUKADU P.O. 7 JUDSON CHULAKKAL PARAMBIL @ NADUVILAPARAMBIL, MULAVUKADU P.O. ADDL. SYLAKUMAR K.S R8 KOCHILATT HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR, KOCHI-682 034. ADDL. SANTHOSH KUMAR R9 KOCHILATH HOUSE, MULAVUKADU PO, KOCHIN-682504. ADDL.R8 & R9 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.17.03.17 IN I.A.19844/16.

¶39

BY ADVS.

¶40

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH) SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH)

¶41

OTHER PRESENT:

¶42

SMT.G.RANJITHA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

W.P.(C) No.20331/2016

¶45

¶46

J U D G M E N T

¶47

The petitioners approached this Court aggrieved by the preparation of survey sketch to determine the encroachment pursuant to a direction of this Court in Ext.P1 judgment. The petitioners' case is that the official respondents did not comply with the direction in Ext.P1 inasmuch as that they did not measure the property of the encroachers according to title and therefore, the survey sketch has to be ignored for the purpose of initiating action under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. In Ext.P1 judgment, this Court directed the official respondents to survey the property and remove the encroachment in accordance with the Land Conservancy Act.

¶48

In the statement filed by the 4^th respondent, it is stated that the survey was conducted and found that there was no encroachment on Government land. As seen from the statement itself, there was no determination of boundaries of the property belonged to private parties. As the exercise was carried out to identify the Government land, the Government is only bound to protect the Government land and if such exercise was carried out to determine the Government land, that would be sufficient for the officials to find out whether there is encroachment or

¶49

W.P.(C) No.20331/2016

¶50

¶51

not. No doubt, if there are any anomalies in regard to the fixation of boundary of the Government land, the petitioners can take up the matter before the District Survey Superintendent. However, the petitioners cannot insist that the land belonged to private parties would have to be measured for determining the encroachment in the Government land.

¶52

I am of the view that if the petitioners have any grievance in regard to the determination of Government land, they are free to take up the matter before the Revenue Divisional Officer or the District Survey Superintendent, in that event, the request of the petitioners shall be considered in accordance with the Government records. If any encroachment is found out as per Ext.P2, the official respondents are bound to remove the same in accordance with the earlier direction issued by this Court in Ext.P1.

¶53

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

smp

¶58

W.P.(C) No.20331/2016

¶59

¶60

APPENDIX

¶61

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶62

P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.15.9.2015 IN WPC NO.14779/2015.

¶63

P2 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SURVEY BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR, DTD.23.2.2016, KANAYANNUR.

¶64

P3 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENQUIRY, DTD.17.12.2015.

¶65

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶66

R6(a) COPY OF THE WRITTEN OBJECTION DTD.2.9.16 SUBMITTED BY 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE TALUK SURVEYOR.

¶67

R6(b) COPY OF NOTICE DTD.12.2.16 ISSUED BY TALUK SURVEYOR TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶68

R6(c) COPY OF REPORT No.97/2015 DTD.8.7.15 OF VILLAGE OFFICER TAKEN BY 6TH RESPONDENT BY RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶69

True Copy

¶70

P.S to Judge

¶71

smp

Antony Cheeku v. the Commissioner, Land Revenue

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antony Cheeku v. the Commissioner, Land Revenue

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. Dhinu M.R. Vs Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit

Akhil Ravi Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.Rajesh R Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Sali P. Mathai Vs Sri. Ajith Pattel

R. Mehaboob Vs State of Kerala

Laiju Antony Vs the State of Kerala