Remanded

James K Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Mar 2022WP(C)/1936/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala halted resurvey proceedings and directed the Tahsildar not to issue a Patta for a disputed property. The order was based on pending civil disputes over possession and title between the petitioners and third parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to defer resurvey proceedings pending the outcome of the civil suit and prohibited the issuance of a Patta until the disputes are resolved.

James K Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1936 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

1 JAMES K JOSEPH AGED 72 YEARS S/O K K JOSEPH, KANNAMPADAM HOUSE, KIDANGOOR SOUTH P O, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686583. 2 K J KURIAKOSE AGED 74 YEARS S/O K K JOSEPH, KANNAMPADAM HOUSE, KIDANGOOR SOUTH P O, KOTTYAM, PIN-686583. 3 THOMA K JOSE. AGED 70 YEARS S/O K K JOSEPH, KANNAMPADAM HOUSE, KIDANGOOR SOUTH P O, KOTTYAM, PIN-686564. BY ADVS. T.M.ABDUL LATIFF K.ASHOK SARAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SURVEY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶10

2 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR RESURVEY THODUPUZHA, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF RESURVEY, THODUPUZHA P O. IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685584. 3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY RESURVEY OFFICE, TALUK OFFICE, PEERUMEDU, AZHUTHA P O, IDUKKI-685531. 4 THE TAHSILDHAR PEERUMEDU TALUK OFFICE, PEERUMEDU, AZHUTHA P O, IDUKKI-685531.

¶11

WP(C) NO. 1936 OF 2022 2

¶12

5 SPECIAL TAHSILDHAR (L A) TALUK OFFICE, PEERUMEDU, AZHUTHA P O, IDUKKI-685531.

¶13

6 TALUK SURVEYOR RESURVEY (L A) TALUK OFFICE PEERUMEDU, AZHUTHA P O, IDUKKI-685531.

¶14

7 VILLAGE OFFICER PEERUMEDU, AZHUTHA P O, IDUKKI-685531.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI. JAFAR KHAN SR.G.P.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 1936 OF 2022 3

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Even though the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 2,3 and 4 to

¶21

finalize the survey records with respect to the property of the 1^st among them, when this matter was considered today, the learned Senior Government Pleader - Shri.Jaffer Khan, submitted that, admittedly, there are internecine disputes between the petitioners and certain 3^rd parties with respect to its possession. He submitted that, therefore, the

¶22

survey Authorities are unable to complete the resurvey proceedings with respect to the property in question and that they are willing to wait until the

¶23

civil disputes are decided between the parties as per law.

¶24

Shri.T.M.Abdul Latiff, learned counsel

¶25

appearing for the petitioners, submitted that his

¶26

clients have a specific case that the property involved is, in fact, included in Block No.35, but that it has been shown to be part of Block Nos.36 and

¶27

WP(C) NO. 1936 OF 2022 4

¶28

37 in the survey records by mistake. He confirmed that there are civil disputes between his clients and certain 3^rd parties with respect to possession of the property; and prayed that, this writ petition be

¶29

ordered, acceding to the afore suggestion of the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶30

Taking note of the afore submissions and

¶31

since a resurvey of the property is impossible at a time when civil disputes are pending between two sides with respect to its possession, I am certain that the suggestion made by Shri.Jaffer Khan is the best available, even as far as the petitioners are concerned.

¶32

Resultantly, I order this writ petition to the limited extent of directing respondents 2,3 and 4 to defer the resurvey proceedings with respect to the

¶33

property in question, until such time as the competent Civil Court passes an order with respect to its possession and title in the Suit which is stated to be pending between the petitioners and rival claimants.

¶34

WP(C) NO. 1936 OF 2022 5

¶35

Consequently, I leave liberty to respondents 2,3 and 4 to approach this Court after a period of 10 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if the civil suit is still not completed, so that an appropriate time frame can also be thought

¶36

of at that time, adverting to the germane

¶37

circumstances prevalent then.

¶38

After I dictated this part of the judgment,

¶39

Shri.Abdul Latiff submitted that, going by Ext.P18, the Tahsildar is likely to issue a 'Patta' with respect to the property.

¶40

It is without need to say that since civil

¶41

disputes are pending, the Tahsildar is directed not to issue the 'Patta' without hearing the petitioners and the contesting claimants, since internecine disputes are admittedly pending between them. It is so clarified.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶44

MC/15.3

¶45

WP(C) NO. 1936 OF 2022 6

¶46

¶47

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶48

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA NO.1446 DATED 1.2.1972 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA NO.724(173) LA NO.669/64 DATED NIL ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA NO.1426 DATED 20.11.1965 ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.849/1970 DATED 14.12.1970.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 386/1972 DATED 23.03.1972.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.1502/2003 DATED 19.10.2006.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT DATED 2.11.2017.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDHAR PEERUMADE DATED 31.08.1971.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.177/2010 DATED JANUARY 2018 BEFORE THE SUB COURT KATTAPPANA.
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.33/2018 DATED 5.2.2018 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT PEERUMADE.
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RESURVEY RECORDS PREPARED BY OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RE.SY.NO.176/247 OF PEERUMADE VILLAGE.
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF THE RESURVEY PLAN DATED

¶49

WP(C) NO. 1936 OF 2022 7

¶50

30.09.1988.

¶51

Exhibit P13	TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 7.10.2017 ISSUED BY PETITIONERS TO THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3.
Exhibit P14	TRUE COPY OF THE CONSOLIDATED OLD RESURVEY PLAN DATED NIL BLOCK NO.35 KH NO.2 IN IDUKKI DISTRICT PEERUMADE TALUK.
Exhibit P15	TRUE COPY OF THE PRESENT RESURVEY PLAN DATED NIL BLOCK NO.35 KH NO.2 IN IDUKKI DISTRICT PEERUMADE TALUK.
Exhibit P16	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER NO.731/2021 DATED 20.09.2021 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P17	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERS NO.732/2021 DATED 20.09.2021 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P18	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A5-552/2016 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED NIL.
Exhibit P19	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 3.1.2022.

James K Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

James K Joseph v. State of Kerala

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

M.C.Muralidharan Vs District Collector

Nagarajan Vs the Tahsildar (Survey)

Gopuran Associates Vs Asset Homes Pvt. Ltd.

T. Mohanan Pillai, Vs State of Kerala

Salini Chandran Vs Manoj Kumar P.V.

Saji T.K., Vs State of Kerala