Dismissed

Prof.M.G.George v. Chinnappan Varghese Kuriakose

Kerala HC6 Feb 2019RP/133/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition, a third party challenged an order directing officials to demarcate land. The Court upheld the original order, finding no error as Section 10 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 permits determining boundaries of registered land by notice to affected persons.

What did the court decide?

The review petition filed by the third party was dismissed with no apparent error found in the original judgment.

Prof.M.G.George Vs Chinnappan Varghese Kuriakose — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 17TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

RP.No. 133 of 2019 IN WP(C). 8275/2017

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8275/2017 of HIGHCOURT

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 PROF.M.G.GEORGE AGED 83 YEARS S/O.REV.FR.GEEVARGHESE, MURIMATTATHIL HOUSE, KOLANCHERI, PIN-682311.

¶9

2 PAUL KURIAN AGED 50 YEARS S/O.M G KURIAN, MURIMATTATHIL HOUSE, KOLANCHERI, PIN-682311.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH SRI.MANU GEORGE KURUVILLA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 CHINNAPPAN VARGHESE KURIAKOSE, AGED 49 YEARS S/O.M T KURIAKOSE, MUKKANANCHERRY HOUSE, VALAYANCHIRANGARA.P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM-683556.

¶13

2 TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683544.

¶14

3 VILLAGE OFFICER, IKKARANAD SOUTH, IKKARANAD, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682311.

¶15

4 TALUK SURVEYOR, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683544.

¶16

BY.ADV.

¶17

SMT.NISHA BOSE GP SRI.K.SIMOD SIVAN-R1

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

RP.No. 133 of 2019

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This review petition is filed by a third party with a leave. Leave was granted. This Court had disposed the writ petition directing the official respondents to demarcate the property covered by the registered document No.3343 of 1957. It is submitted that there is no power under law to survey and demarcate the land which is already surveyed and, re-survey plan has been prepared, except under Rule 22 of the Kerala Survey And Boundaries Rules, 1964.

¶23

This Court, in fact, disposed the writ petition directing the official respondents to demarcate the land with reference to the registered holding. The “registered holding of land” as per Section 2 (iv) of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 means, the person in whose name the land in question is registered in the Government accounts of the village. Section 10 of the Act confers

¶24

power to the Survey Officer to determine and record a disputed boundary with reasons. Rules 27 and 43 under the Rules permit the registered owner of a land to demarcate and survey land. These provisions are all related to determining boundaries of a registered land already surveyed. Therefore, there is no difficulty

¶25

RP.No. 133 of 2019

¶26

¶27

in determining boundaries of a registered land in accordance with the provisions as above. Further, this Court while disposing the writ petition itself ordered that notice shall be given to all affected persons. I find no apparent error in the judgment. Accordingly the review petition is dismissed.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

ska

¶32

RP.No. 133 of 2019

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

¶36

ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED ON 22.6.2017 FILED BY 1ST REVIEW PETITIONER BEFORE THE TALUK SURVEYOR, KUNNATHUNADU. ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 19.1.2019 FILED BY 1ST REVIEW PETITIONER BEFORE THE TALUK SURVEYOR, KUNNATHUNADU. ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL HANDED OVER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 19-1-2019. ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED BY REVIEW PETITIONERS FROM 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.1.2019.

Prof.M.G.George v. Chinnappan Varghese Kuriakose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prof.M.G.George v. Chinnappan Varghese Kuriakose

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

Lakshminarayanan a Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Sukumara Panicker, Vs State of Kerala

Binu John, Vs the District Executive Officer

The Manager, Edavoor Upper Primary School Vs the State of Kerala

K.K.Surekha Thazhe Valiya Kattil Upper Primary School Assistant, Vs the State of Kerala

Anugraha.P.J, Vs the State of Kerala