Dismissed

K Pushparajan Achary v. Premalatha

Kerala HC1 Feb 2022FAO (RO)/2/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed this appeal against an order remanding a suit for declaration of title. The Court reprimanded the survey authority for an affidavit denying possession of mandatory records, directing officials to produce them and allowing initiation of coercive action if non-compliant. The suit was remanded to be disposed within six months.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with observations directing the lower court to initiate action against officers if they fail to produce old survey records; suit to be disposed in six months.

K Pushparajan Achary Vs Premalatha — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

FAO (RO) NO. 5 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF REMAND DATED 28-1-2022 IN OS 158/1996 OF SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA.

¶7

AS 160/2016 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA. APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS :

¶8

1 SUJATHA, AGED 61 YEARS, D/O.MANDAKINI, SUDHAMAYI (PUTHENPARAMBIL), KANDALLOOR SOUTH, ARATTUPUZHA, KARTHIKAPALLY-690 535.

¶9

*2 MANDAKINI, (DELETED), W/O.LATE UTHAMAN, SUDHAMAYI (PUTHENPARAMBIL), KANDALLOOR SOUTH, ARATTUPUZHA, KARTHIKAPALLY-690 535.

¶10

THE SECOND APPELLANT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY VIDE ORDER DATED 06/06/2022 IN IA 3/2022.

¶11

BY ADVS.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL &

¶12

ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW.

¶13

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS :

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA-688 001.

¶15

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RDO OFFICE, CHENGANNUR-689 121.

¶16

3 THE TAHSILDAR, `TALUK OFFICE, KARTHIKAPPALLY-690 535.

¶17

4 THE ADDL.TALUK SURVEYOR, VILLAGE OFFICE, ARATTUPUZHA-690 535.

¶18

5 THE VILLAGE OFIFCER, VILLAGE OFFICE, ARATTUPUZHA-690 535.

¶19

BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.S.UNNIKRISHNAN.

¶20

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER - REMAND ORDER HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

FAO(RO) No.5 of 2022 2

¶22

P.SOMARAJAN, J.

¶23

-----------------------------------------------FAO(RO) No.5 of 2022 ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2022.

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

A suit for declaration of title and permanent prohibitory injunction was dismissed by the trial court finding fault with the commissioner who prepared the survey report and plan based on re-survey. The defendants challenged the report on the ground that what is located as that of the property of the plaintiffs by the survey commissioner is not correct. Interestingly, the attempt made by the plaintiffs to summon old survey record and correlation statement so as to identify its location resulted in failure on the basis of an affidavit submitted by the survey authority that they do not have any such record. The survey authority is bound to keep all the old survey plan and correlation statement. Necessarily, coercive steps should be initiated against the officers who had

¶26

FAO(RO) No.5 of 2022 3

¶27

defaulted in the production of those documents. The affidavit hence cannot be accepted. At this juncture, the learned Government Pleader who represents the State Government fairly conceded that proper instruction will be given to the concerned officials to produce the original or the certified copy of the old survey records including survey plan and the correlation statement. Hence, the court below will be at liberty to initiate action against the officers in the event of non-production of those documents within the time schedule specified by the court below in that behalf. There is no prayer for fixation of boundary. Hence, the parties are at liberty to incorporate the same. The appeal is dismissed with the abovesaid observations. The suit shall be disposed of within a time schedule of six months from the date of appearance of parties. The parties shall appear before the trial court on 27/06/2022.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

P. SOMARAJAN, JUDGE

¶30

amk

¶31

FAO(RO) No.5 of 2022 4

¶32

APPENDIX OF FAO (RO) 5/2022

¶33

PETITIONER ANNEXURES :

¶34

Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF IA NO.1206/2012 IN OS NO.158/1996 OF THE SUB COURT, MAVELIKARA.

¶35

Annexure B CERTIFIED COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT IN IA NO.1206/2012 IN OS NO.158/1996 OF THE SUB COURT, MAVELIKARA. Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09.07.2012 OF THE SUB COURT MAVELIKARA IN IA NO.1206/2012 IN OS NO.158/1996. Annexure D CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COURT CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN OS NO.158/1996 OF THE SUB COURT MAVELIKARA.

¶36

Annexure E CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.07.2012 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ARATTUPUZHA TO THE COURT CERTIFICATE. Annexure F CERTIFIED COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.02.2013 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, ALAPPUZHA. Annexure G CERTIFIED COPY OF THE B DIARY IN OS NO.158/196 OF THE SUB COURT, MAVELIKARA.

K Pushparajan Achary v. Premalatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Pushparajan Achary v. Premalatha

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

Abhilash Raj Vs Abdul Azeez

Jomon Vs M/S.Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.

Babu v. Vs S.M.Salim

R.Mohankumar, Vs P.Sheela Remani

D.Prakash, Vs Geetha

V.S.Vijayaraghavan Vs National Highway Authority of India