Disposed

George Baby v. the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department

Kerala HC2 Aug 2018WP(C)/26120/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition without quashing the impugned order. Instead, he issued execution directions to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to examine allegations of unauthorized alterations in survey registers, consider relevant documents including the Grama Panchayat certificate, and pass final orders after hearing the petitioner and concerned parties within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directions were issued to Respondents 2 and 3 to examine documents, obtain reports from relevant authorities, hear petitioner and affected party, and pass orders within three months.

George Baby Vs the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 26120 of 2018

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

GEORGE BABY, AGED 36, S/O. LATE BABY GEORGE, MYLADUMKUNNEL HOUSE, ALUVA, PIN - 683 101. BY ADVS.SRI.JOHN NUMPELI (JUNIOR) SRI.V.AJITH

¶7

RESPONDENT(S):

¶8

1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT ROOM NO.372, 1ST FLOOR, MAIN BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 2. THE ADDL.DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS & VIGILANCE OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA- 695 014. 3. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, OPP.MUSEUM, VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 002. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, DIRECTORATE OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695 014. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P. MADHU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/

¶9

WP(C).No. 26120 of 2018 (L)

¶10

APPENDIX

¶11

PETITIONERS' E --------------	XHIBITS: -------
EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS THE OLD GATE AT THE ENTRANCE OF ROAD TO THE PETITIONER'S THARAWAD HOUSE.
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF COMBINED FILED REGISTER AGAINST SURVEY NUMBER 293/5 OF VELIYANNUR VILLAGE KEPT AT CENTRAL SURVEY OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM.
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE BTR OF SURVEY NUMBER 293/5 OF VELIYANNUR VILLAGE KEPT AT THE VELIYANNUR VILLAGE OFFICE, MEENACHIL TALUK.
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SECRETARY, VILLAGE OFFICE, VELIYANNUR DATED 5.12.2016.
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1.12.2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS.
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.5.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS AND VIGILANCE OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM
EXHIBIT P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.5.2018 ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM.

¶12

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

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

mbr/ 07.08.2018.

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶17

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

¶18

W.P(C)No.26120 of 2018

¶19

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

¶20

Dated this the 02^nd day of August, 2018

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

¶23

“ a) Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit: P7 order and quash the same in the interest of justice.

¶24

b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3^rd respondent to re-consider and pass orders on Exhibit: P5 complaint, after giving an opportunity to being heard to the petitioner.

¶25

c) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit:P6 complaint after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

¶26

d) Issue such other orders as if deemed fit and proper by this Honorable Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶27

Heard Sri.John Numpeli, learned counsel for the

¶28

petitioner and Sri.K.P.Madhu, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶29

The petitioner claims to be the successor in interest of the property in Survey No.293/5 in Veliyannur Village, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam Revenue District and that the property in question was originally in the name of the petitioner’s great grandfather, Myladumkunnel Avira Chacko. The petitioner would

¶30

W.P(C).No.26120 of 2018

¶31

¶32

state that the property is lying as a road/pathway to the tharavadu/family house of the petitioner’s property and is having well-defined boundaries. It is further alleged that attempts are being made, to alter the description of the private pathway of a private party as a public road at the instance of one Sri.Vijayakumar Roy and for that purpose, unauthorized alterations were made in Ext.P-2 BTR register maintained by the Village Officer concerned and Ext.P-3 combined field register maintained by the Central Survey Office and that it is the case of the petitioner that a mere perusal of Ext.P-2 BTR and Ext.P-3 combined field register would show that the alterations are conspicuous and visible. That earlier Sri.Vijayakumar Roy had given complaint alleging that the abovesaid private pathway is a public road, before various authorities including the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, in the year 2014. Later, on his enquiries, the petitioner could find out that there are alterations in Ext.P-2 BTR and Ext.P-3 combined field register in respect of the descriptions related to the petitioner’s property and thereupon, the petitioner had filed Ext.P-5 representation dated 01.12.2016 before the 3^rd respondent Commissioner of Land Revenue, Government of

¶33

W.P(C).No.26120 of 2018

¶34

¶35

Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram praying for directions from that authority for direction to the revenue authorities concerned to accept land tax from the petitioner for the abovesaid property and also to conduct an independent and personal enquiry, in respect of the above unauthorized alterations made in the BTR and the other documents and to take measures to restore the original entries in Ext.P-2 BTR etc. Further, the petitioner had also submitted Ext.P-6 representation dated 17.05.2017 before the 2^nd respondent Additional Director of Survey and Land Records, Thiruvananthapuram praying that necessary action for correction of the alterations in Ext.P-3 combined field register maintained by the Central Survey office and for necessary other directions. According to the petitioner, now the Commissioner for Land Revenue has passed orders as per Ext.P-7 dated 26.05.2018, in relation to Ext.P-5 representation dated 01.12.2016, by making reference only to the entries in Ext.P-2 BTR and without referring to Ext.P-3 combined field register of the Central Survey office. That the 3^rd respondent has stated in Ext.P-7 that the land in question could be a puramboke and the petitioner would contend that if R3 had perused the relevant entries in Ext.P-3 combined

¶36

W.P(C).No.26120 of 2018

¶37

¶38

field register of the Central Survey office, it could have been revealed that the tandaper account mentioned in the abovesaid property was in the name of the great grandfather of the petitioner and further that the name of Sri.Abraham Vijayakumar Roy has been interpolated in serial Nos.22 and 23 of Ext.P-3 etc.

¶39

The petitioner has further placed reliance on Ext.P-4 certificate dated 05.10.2016 issued by the local grama panchayat concerned (Veliyannoor Grama Panchayat), wherein, it is stated that the path way in question is not a public road or panchayat road as per the asset register of that panchayat.

¶40

Further the petitioner would also submit that his enquiries has disclosed that the 2^nd respondent has not so far considered and passed orders on Ext.P-6 representation dated 17.05.2017. In the light of this aspect, the petitioner’s counsel would submit that the petitioner would file a comprehensive representation before the 3^rd respondent Land Revenue Commissioner to re-examine the matter and that if both Ext.P-3 combined field register as well as Ext.P-2 BTR is examined, it would be revealed that the alterations had been made in an unauthorized manner and that necessary steps should be taken to

¶41

W.P(C).No.26120 of 2018

¶42

¶43

restore the original entries in those documents and that the petitioner could also implead the abovesaid person (Sri.Abraham Vijayakumar Roy) as respondent in his application that is to be filed before the 3^rd respondent etc. It is for the petitioner to raise his grievances based on Exts.P-2 and P-3 before the 3^rd respondent, after impleading the affected party and he may also produce copies of Exts.P-2 and P-3 along with his application. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent Commissioner will call for a report regarding Ext.P-3 combined field register maintained by the Central Survey Office and may also obtain reports from the revenue and survey officials concerned in the matter and after granting an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the abovesaid affected party, will pass orders on such representation within 3 months from the date of submission of such representation along with the certified copy of this judgment. In this regard, the 3^rd respondent will also consider and ascertain the considered views of R2 in respect of the abovesaid matters and may ensure that a co-ordinated action is taken by the 3^rd and 2^nd respondents so as to comprehensively deal with the grievance of the petitioner.

¶44

W.P(C).No.26120 of 2018

¶45

¶46

In this process, the 2^nd respondent-The Additional Director of Survey and Land Records should also ensure that the representation of the petitioner at Ext.P-6 is also taken up for consideration, without much delay and will pass orders thereon, after hearing the petitioner and the affected party. It is made clear that it will open to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the 2^nd respondent, if Ext.P-6 representation filed as early as on 17.05.2017 may not be readily traceable in that office. The 2^nd respondent will ensure that co-ordinated action is taken with the 3rd respondent, so that the grievances of the petitioner could be comprehensively dealt with, so that a considered decision is taken after hearing the petitioner and the affected party concerned. Steps in that regard should be duly completed by the 2^nd respondent as well within 3 months from the date of submission of such fresh representation along with the copy of this judgment.

¶47

The abovesaid aspect based on Ext.P-4 should also be duly adverted to and considered by the respondents 3 and 2 while they render the decisions as aforestated and it will be open to those authorities to call for a report from the grama panchayat concerned and also from the local engineer of the Public Works

¶48

W.P(C).No.26120 of 2018

¶49

¶50

Department concerned as to the status of that pathway/road in question.

¶51

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

¶52

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶53

vgd/04.08.18

George Baby v. the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Baby v. the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department

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

C.Rajan Vs the Tahsildar

P.K.Fathimakutty Vs State of Kerala

Fazil A.M. Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education

Baiju Vs the Sub-Registrar

N.Muhammed Nisar Vs the Land Tribunal, Tirur

Sasidharan Vs Presiding Officer, Ernakulam District Maintenance Tribunal