Disposed

Jayasree v. Director of Survey & Others

Kerala HC26 Nov 2021WP(C)/4521/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed to quash survey proceedings and direct authorities to pass pending orders was disposed of. The Court observed there was no need for intervention under Article 226 as the matter was pending before the Director of Survey, and civil rights of parties were left open.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; civil rights of petitioner and fourth respondent are left open.

Jayasree Vs Director of Survey & Others — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 4521 OF 2011

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

JAYASREE
VIPANCHIKA, THATTARKONAM.P.O.,, THRIKOVILVATTOM,
KOLLAM-691005.
BY ADVS.
V.PREMCHAND
SURYA MOHAN P.

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 DIRECTOR OF SURVEY

¶9

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶10

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM-691013.

¶11

3 DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE,, KOLLAM691013.

¶12

4 ANITHAKUMARI W/O.V.MURALEEDHARAN, THENGUVILA VEEDU,, THATTARKONAM P.O., THRIKOVILVATTOM,, KOLLAM691005.

¶13

BY ADV SRI.M.P.RAMNATH

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SMT.RASHMI.K.M, SR.GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 26.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C).No.4521/2011

¶18

¶19

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶20

W.P.(C).No.4521 of 2011

¶21

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 26^th day of November, 2021

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶24

i. To call for the records leading to Exhibit P-4 and all the proceedings thereon and quash the same by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ direction or order.

¶25

ii. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order directing respondents 1 and 2 to pass orders in Exhibit P-6 and P7 within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶26

iii. To declare that to Exhibit P-4 and all the consequential proceedings thereon are arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust, unfair and unconstitutional.

¶27

iv. To award costs.

¶28

v. To grant such other reliefs that this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper to grant.

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C).No.4521/2011

¶31

Heard the counsel for the petitioner, Government Pleader and the counsel for the 4^th respondent.

¶32

The counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contentions in the writ petition. The counsel takes me through paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit and submitted that the matter is pending before the Director of Survey and there may be a direction to the Director of Survey to finalise the matter pending before that authority. On the other hand, the Government Pleader and the counsel for the 4^th respondent submitted that a reading of paragraph 8 onwards in the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent will show that what is the correct position.

¶33

I considered the contentions of the petitioner and

¶34

the respondents. It will be better to extract paragraphs 5 and 8 to 10 of the counter affidavit:

¶35

“5. On 11.10.2010 the petitioner filed a petition before the District Collector and the Director of Survey, Thiruvananthapuram to set aside the Order No. Sy8-55672/07 dated 14.11.2007 of District Survey Superintendent, Kollam. Report has been received from the Deputy Director. The Survey Director again directed the Deputy Director, Kollam to re-examine the decision of DSA 468/07 and to

¶36

W.P.(C).No.4521/2011

¶37

¶38

report whether any error has happened in the decision. Letter was given to the District Survey Superintendent by the Deputy Director of Survey, Kollam. The District Survey Superintendent submitted the DSA file and Sy8-55672/07 file to that office which is pending perusal at the office of the Deputy Director of Survey, Kollam. Reply has been sent from the Survey Directorate to the petitioner Smt. Jayasree informing that further action will be taken in accordance with the judgment in this Writ Petition.

¶39

Late Smt. Chellamma Amma, mother of the 4^th respondent was the owner of 11 Cents of land in old Survey No.204, Thrikkovilvattom Village, by virtue of LA 29/71 of Land Assignment Tahsildar, Kottarakkara. Out of this 11 Cents an area of 0.0290 hectares were re-surveyed as Survey No.133/5 Block 22, and the remaining 0.0156 Ares were included in Survey No.133/2 road puramboke with an area 0.1320 hectare. The 4^th respondent, the legal heir of Smt. Chellamma Amma, filed application before the District Survey Superintendent with sufficient valid documents. After verification of records and field, the District Survey Superintendent passed Order No. Sy8-55672/07 to transfer 0.0131 hectares of Road Puramboke land in Survey No.133/2 by creating a new sub division 133/9 in favour of Smt. Chellamma Amma, the patta holder of LA 29/71. Changes were effected in Village records, sub division No.133/9 created following the measurements and shape given

¶40

W.P.(C).No.4521/2011

¶41

¶42

in the sketch of LA 29/71.

¶43

LA 29/71 is a valid document issued in favour of Smt. Chellamma Amma, mother of 4^th respondent, the legal heir of Smt. Chellamma Amma filed petition before the District Survey Superintendent as DSA No.468/07. Decision was taken as per rules and based on clear evidence and after verification of records and field.

¶44

Recording the 1.56 Ares of land owned by Smt. Chellamma Amma as puramboke road was an error crept in re-survey records, that mistake was corrected as per petition and decision has been taken verifying LA sketch after enquiry and field verification. Sub divisions created in DSA 468/07 is in accordance with the shape and measurements given in the sketch in LA 29/71, file. Since LA order was issued in favour of Chellamma Amma, the property was included in her name and that was corrected in her name.

¶45

Hence it is submitted that respondents 1, 2 and 3 have only discharged the duties vested upon them. Considering the facts stated it is humbly prayed that the above Writ Petition may be dismissed with cost to the State.”

¶46

In the light of the above statement in the counter affidavit, I think there is nothing to be decided by this Court invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner or the 4^th respondent is aggrieved by

¶47

¶48

W.P.(C).No.4521/2011

¶49

any action of the official respondents, they can approach the authority concerned and the authority concerned will do the needful in accordance with law. All the civil rights of the

¶50

petitioner and the 4^th respondent are left open.

¶51

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶52

sd/-

¶53

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶54

¶55

W.P.(C).No.4521/2011

¶56

¶57

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4521/2011

¶58

`PETITION`	`ER`	`EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE` `IN O.S.NO.772 OF 2001 BEFORE THE` `ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM DATED` `31.05.2005 ALONG WITH PLAN.`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY KYCHIT` `SHOWING THE DELIVERY OF PROPERTY TO` `THE PETITIONER ON 20.01.2007.`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER GIVEN BY` `THE THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE OFFICER` `DATED 24.04.2009.`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE` `DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTDENT DATED` `14.11.2007, THANDAPER ACCOUNT IN` `SY.NO.133/9, FORM NO.7 AND SURVEY` `SKETCH.`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED` `NO.1599 DATED 04.05.1999 EXECUTED` `AMONG 4TH RESPONDENT AND OTHERS.`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED` `11.10.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED` `11.10.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE` `RESPONDENT.`

Jayasree v. Director of Survey & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayasree v. Director of Survey & Others

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

Shanti Joseph T., Vs Mala Grama Panchayat

Thomas Joseph Vs the District Collector

Thomas Joseph Vs the District Collector

Riyasu Vs M/S. Shriram Transport Finance

M/S.Pukalakkat Properties Pvt.Ltd. Vs Kalamassery Municipality

T.K.Unnikrishnan Pillai Vs the Secretary, Kerala Khadi & Village