Disposed

Baby D.K., v. the District Collector

Kerala HC23 Jan 2019WP(C)/1955/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought directions to correct re-survey mistakes affecting the petitioners' land area. The High Court ordered the third respondent, Tahsildar, to conduct a new survey and demarcation with prior notice, following a review of title deeds and existing records, to be completed within three months and to allow the petitioners a final hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to conduct a re-survey with notice, examine relevant documents, obtain a report with sketch, allow presentation of submissions, and complete the process within three months.

Baby D.K., Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 3RD MAGHA, 1940 WP(C).No. 1955 of 2019

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 BABY D.K., B.J.BHAVAN, THAZHAM SOUTH, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM.

¶7

2 SHEEJA JOY, B.J.BHAVAN, THAZHAM SOUTH, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR SRI.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM ABDUL SAMAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.SABU PULLAN SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691001. 2 THE SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691001.

¶11

3 THE TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM TALUK, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691001.

¶12

SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS, GOVT.PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

W.P(C)No.1955 of 2019

¶15

¶16

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶17

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

¶18

W.P(C)No.1955 of 2019

¶19

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

¶20

Dated this the 23^rd day of January, 2019

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

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

¶23

“i) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider and take appropriate action on Ext.P6 representation as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a time limit that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

¶24

ii) to issue a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to the 3^rd respondent to take appropriate action o n Ext.P5 forthwith so as to identify the missing property owned by the petitioner;

¶25

iii) to declare that the petitioner is entitled to have the property of 1 acre 31 cents in the re-survey records since the said property is in the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners from 1991 onwards;

¶26

iv) to issue such other appropriate Writ, Order or direction as is deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.”

¶27

Heard Sri.Sabu Pullan, learned counsel appearing for

¶28

the petitioners and Smt.Priya Shanavas, learned Government

¶29

Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶30

According to the 1^st petitioner,he has given Exts.P-5 & P-6 applications before respondents 3 & 2 respectively, requesting

¶31

that necessary steps should be effectuated for correcting the

¶32

¶33

¶34

mistakes in the re-survey, which has led to the reduction of the land area with respect to the petitioners' property.

¶35

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is ordered that the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar will ensure that the survey, measurement and demarcation of the petitioners' property is got effected with the aid of the Taluk Surveyor or any other competent Surveyor under the District Survey Superintendent, etc., with due prior notice to the petitioner and the other neighbouring property owners. The Surveyor concerned will ensure that the survey, measurement and demarcation of the petitioners' property and affected neighbouring property owners concerned are got effected with due prior notice to them and after examination of the petitioners' title deeds, re-survey records, old survey records and any other relevant piece of materials and should also give a report regarding the outcome of the said survey, measurement and demarcation process, along with the survey sketch. Copy of the report of the Surveyor and copy of the survey sketch should be given in advance to the petitioners and they may submit their written submissions in the matter before the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar and thereafter, the 3^rd respondentTahsildar will afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to

¶36

¶37

¶38

the petitioners and will ascertain, as to the correctness of the petitioner’s submission regarding the alleged mistakes in the re-survey process and finalise the request made by the 1^st petitioner in Ext.P-5 application. The entire process in this regard should be duly completed by the 3^rd respondent, without much delay, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶39

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

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

vgd/25.01.19

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.3595/85 DATED 21.08.1985 OF C.P.PHILIP. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4893/1991 DATED 19.11.1991 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 29.04.2014 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHIRAKKARA VILLAGE OF THE FIRST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHIRAKKARA VILLAGE TO THE SECOND PETITIONER DATED 10.02.2016. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.12.2017. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5.7.2018.

Baby D.K., v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby D.K., v. the District Collector

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

K. Purushan, Vs the District Collector

Namitha D., Vs Radhika P.R.

Abdul Jaleel Vs Special Thahsildar

M/S.Kochiplast Solutions Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

Dioncey Augustine Vs State of Kerala

Annamma Abraham, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer