Disposed

Poomulli Neelakandha Namboothiripad Memorial Bharatheeya Sasthra Vidya Peedham, v. the District Collector

Kerala HC12 Feb 2019WP(C)/4117/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking survey and demarcation of the petitioner's property. The judge ordered respondents to locate relevant documents, direct the third respondent to take steps for survey within three months, and allow the petitioner to file an application if the original is lost, without remitting already paid fees.

What did the court decide?

Directs third respondent to complete survey and measurement within three months; directs respondents to locate Form No.10 application copy; allows fresh application filing if original is untraceable w

Poomulli Neelakandha Namboothiripad Memorial Bharatheeya… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 23RD MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 4117 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

POOMULLI NEELAKANDHAN NAMBOOTHIRIPAD MEMORIAL BHARATHEEYA SASTHRA VIDYA PEEDHAM, CHERUTHURUTHY, SHORNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT M. MURALEEDHARAN.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.N.M.MADHU SMT.C.S.RAJANI SRI.M.C.ASHI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, TRISSUR PIN 680 003.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, THRISSUR DISTRICT, AYYANTHOLE, TRISSUR PIN 680 003.

¶12

3 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS) THALAPPILLY TALUK OFFICE, VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 003.

¶13

4 ADDL. R4. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, THALAPPILLY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

ADDITIONAL R4 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/02/2019.

¶15

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P(C)No.4117 of 2019

¶18

¶19

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶20

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

¶21

W.P(C)No.4117 of 2019

¶22

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

¶23

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2019

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

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

¶26

"i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the third respondent to measure the entire property as requests in Exts.P2 & P2(a) and to demarcate the boundaries of the same and to issue a proper sketch thereafter to the petitioner.

¶27

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the first and second respondents to ensure timely and proper compliance of the measurement of the entire property as requests in Exts.P2 & P2(a) by the third respondent as sought for in prayer No.i above.

¶28

iii. Pass such other orders as deem fit and proper including that of cost.”

¶29

Heard Sri.N.M.Madhu, learned counsel appearing for the

¶30

petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader

¶31

appearing for the respondents.

¶32

The petitioner had submitted Exts.P-2 & P-2(a) petitions before the 1^st respondent-District Collector.

¶33

W.P(C)No.4117 of 2019

¶34

¶35

The petitioner had submitted Exts.P-2 & P-2(a) petitions before the 1^st respondent-District Collector and the 2^nd respondent-District Survey Superintendent, respectively , requesting that steps may be taken for survey, measurement and demarcation of the subject property, which is now managed by the petitioners, in accordance with the provisions in the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act and Rules framed thereunder. Thereupon, the petitioner was informed that he should file an application as per the proforma in terms of the Rules framed under the said Act. Thereupon, the petitioner was informed by Ext.P-3 letter dated 10.08.2017 by the 2^nd respondent-that the petitioner will have to file the requisite application in the prescribed proforma before the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar (Land Records). The petitioner has then filed Ext.P-4 application dated 03.11.2017 in Form No.10 as per the provisions contained in the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules framed under the said Act, for survey, measurement and demarcation of the boundaries of the subject property managed by the petitioner before the 3^rd respondentTahsildar (Land Records), who in turn responded to the same by requesting the petitioner as per Ext.P-5 letter dated 01.01.2018 that the petitioner will have to remit the requisite fee of

¶36

¶37

¶38

Rs.3,750/- for conduct of the said survey and measuremet process. Thereupon, the petitioner has remitted the entire demanded fee of Rs.3,750/-, as per Ext.P-6 chellan receipt dated 15.01.2018 and the petitioner had also made available a copy of Ext.P-6 receipt before the 3^rd respondent. Since no action was forthcoming on Ext.P-5 application, the petitioner had made enquiries and thereupon, the 3^rd respondent had informed the petitioner as per Ext.P-7 letter dated 07.05.2018 that he has not so far submitted the application in the prescribed Form 10 proforma and reference is also made in Ext.P-7 to Ext.P-5 letter. The petitioner has asserted that though he had submitted Exts.P-2 & P-2(a) requests which are not in prescribed proforma, later pursuant to Ext. P-3 letter dated 10.08.2017, he had submitted Ext.P-4 application Form 10 prescribed proforma on 03.11.2017. So that to Ext.P-4, the 3^rd respondent had responded by requesting the petitioner to remit the prescribed fee of Rs.3,750/- for the said measurement process, which was complied by the petitioner by remitting the said fee, as per Ext.P-6 challan receipt dated 15.01.2018, etc. The very fact that the 3^rd respondent has issued Ext.P-5 letter dated 01.01.2018 to show that the petitioner has submitted the application as per Ext.P-4. If as a matter of fact, the petitioner had not submitted Ext.P-4 application in the prescribed

¶39

¶40

¶41

proforma, then certainly the 3^rd respondent would have stated in Ext.P-5 letter that not only the requisite fee of Rs.3,750/- be remitted but also the application in the prescribed proforma should also be submitted. Therefore, the letter as per Ext.P-5 issued by the 3^rd respondent would itself be an indication of the fact that Ext.P-4 application is in prescribed proforma. That apart, even the 3^rd respondent had made reference in Ext.P-7 letter dated 07.05.2018 to Ext.P-5 letter dated 01.01.2018. Therefore, it is for the 3^rd respondent to immediately trace out Ext.P-4 application and pursuant to the same and effective further action thereon. If the original of Ext.P-4 application cannot immediately traced out in the office of the 3^rd respondent, then by way of abundant caution and to avoid further delay, the petitioner may file an application in the prescribed proforma in Form No.10 before the 3^rd respondent, along with a certified copy of this judgment and copy of the said application and copy of the said judgment should also be furnished separately by the petitioner to the 4^th respondent-Taluk Surveyor as well. However, in that eventuality the respondents shall not insist the petitioner should again remit the fee which has already been remitted as per Ext.P-6 dated 15.01.2018. The petitioner may also make available a photocopy of Ext.P-6 challan receipt, along with the

¶42

¶43

¶44

abovesaid Form No.10 application with the certified copy of this judgment before the 3^rd respondent. Thereupon, the 3^rd respondent will immediately take steps to ensure that the subject property is got surveyed and measured by the 4^th respondent-Taluk Surveyor with due prior notice to the petitioner and any other affected neighbouring property owners. The Surveyor will ensure that the survey and measurement is conducted on the basis of the title deeds/prior title deeds, old survey records, re-survey records and any other piece of materials and should complete the process of survey, measurement and demarcation of the boundaries of the subject property, in accordance with the abovesaid facts and circumstances framed thereunder. The Surveyor should give a report and survey sketch on the outcome of the survey, measurement and demarcation. Copy of the report of the Surveyor and copy of the survey sketch should be given to the petitioner in advance and thereafter, the petitioner may submit written objections in the matter before the 3^rd respondent, who will afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and then will pass orders finalising the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P-4 application for survey, measurement and demarcation of the properties, in accordance with law and the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act and Rules framed thereunder. The entire

¶45

¶46

¶47

process in this regard should be completed by the 3^rd and 4^th respondent, without much delay, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶48

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

¶49

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

vgd/18.03.19

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶55

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE 19-08-2017	AUTHORIZATION LETTER DATED
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE PETITIONER	WRITTEN REQUEST SUBMITTED TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE PETITIONER	WRITTEN REQUEST SUBMITTED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE SEC	REPLY DATED 10-08-2017 OND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 03-11-2017 PETITIONER.	APPLICATION IN FORM NO.10 SUBMITTED BY THE
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE THI	LETTER DATED 01-01-2018 RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE	RECEIPT DATED 15-01-2018
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE THI	LETTER DATED 07-05-2018 RD RESPONDENT.

Poomulli Neelakandha Namboothiripad Memorial Bharatheeya Sasthra Vidya Peedham, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poomulli Neelakandha Namboothiripad Memorial Bharatheeya Sasthra Vidya Peedham, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.T.P.Jayakrishnan, Vs the State of Kerala

Shaijo @ Shijo, Vs the Tahsildar

Johnson Vs the State of Kerala

Radharishnan, Vs the District Collector

Muraleedharan Vs State of Kerala

Kishore a. Vs the Secretary to Govt.