Partly allowed

M.C.Muralidharan v. District Collector

Kerala HC14 Mar 2022WP(C)/310/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged errors in resurvey records classifying their land as Government land. The Court directed the competent authority to expeditiously dispose of applications for rectifying survey records within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the competent authority to expeditiously dispose of the petitioners' applications for rectification of survey records within three months.

M.C.Muralidharan Vs District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 310 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 M.C.MURALIDHARAN AGED 49 YEARS S/O.M.C.KRISHNAN (LATE), MOTTAMMAL HOUSE, 'PUTHIYAKANDAM', ANANDASRAM P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶8

2 SOBHA MURALI, W/O.MURALIDHARAN M.C., MOTTAMMAL HOUSE, 'PUTHIYAKANDAM', ANANDASRAM P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.) SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA SRI.BALU TOM

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD-671121.

¶12

2 TAHSILDAR,(CORRECTED) TALUK OFFICE, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD-671315. R2. CORRECT ADDRESS TAHSILDAR(LR), TALUK OFFICE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD-671315. (THE DESCRIPTION OF R2 IS SUO MOTU CORRECTED AS PER ORDER DATED 10-02-2021).

¶13

3 VILLAGE OFFICER, AJANUR VILLAGE, P.O.AJANUR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671531.

¶14

SMT.RESMI THOMAS G.P.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 310 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioners say that even though the properties involved in this case have been in their ownership and possession on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2 for the last several years, when a resurvey appears to have been conducted, errors were crept in, leading to an extent of 2.91 Ares being taken away from their account and classified as Government land.

¶20

The petitioners assert that since this can only be an error, they preferred Exts.P3 and P4 applications before the competent Authority, under Form 8 of the Kerala Survey and Boundary Rules, for rectification of the survey records and pray that same be directed to be taken up and disposed of, thus leading to correction of the said records, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶21

The afore request of the petitioners,

¶22

WP(C) NO. 310 OF 2021

¶23

¶24

as made by their learned counsel – Sri.Balu Tom, were answered by the learned Senior Government Pleader – Smt.Resmi Thomas, saying that petitioners cannot seek that they be permitted to remit land tax on the property in question as long as the resurvey records show the extent in question to be “Government Puramboke”. She submitted that, therefore, if the petitioners require any relief, they will have to seek the survey records to be properly corrected; and added that if this Court is inclined to grant relief, then Exts.P3 and P4 can be taken up and disposed of by the competent Authority without any delay. She added that if, during the said process, it is found that petitioners must make any further application, the competent Authority may also be left liberty to requisition them to do so.

¶25

Taking note of the afore submissions

¶26

and since the petitioners assert that there are

¶27

WP(C) NO. 310 OF 2021

¶28

¶29

errors in the resurvey records, for the

¶30

rectification of which they have preferred Exts.P3 and P4, I am certain that they are entitled to relief to such extent.

¶31

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and

¶32

direct the competent respondent to take up

¶33

Exts.P3 and P4 and dispose of the same, after affording the petitioners an opportunity of

¶34

being heard and of producing necessary documents in substantiation of their plea; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶35

It goes without saying that if the

¶36

competent Authority is to require the

¶37

petitioners to make any further application,

¶38

they shall accede to it forthwith, so that the

¶39

afore exercise can be completed without any

¶40

WP(C) NO. 310 OF 2021

¶41

¶42

unnecessary delay.

¶43

If, after the afore exercise, the resurvey records are corrected as required by the petitioners, then they will be at liberty to approach the 3^rd respondent - Village Officer appositely, who will thereupon allow him to remit land tax on the property in question without any avoidable delay thereafter.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

SAS

¶48

WP(C) NO. 310 OF 2021

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 310/2021

¶51

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶52

EXHIBIT P1	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF 29.04.2015.	JENMOM ASSIGNMENT DEED THE 1ST PETITIONER ON
EXHIBIT P2	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF 29.04.2015.	JENMOM ASSIGNMENT DEED THE 2ND PETITIONER ON
EXHIBIT P3	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BY THE 1ST PETITIONER RESPONDENT ON 10.04.20	APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND 19.
EXHIBIT P4	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BY THE 2ND PETITIONER RESPONDENT ON 10.04.20	APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND 19.
EXHIBIT P5	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RESPECT TO THE 1ST PET DATED 12.01.2017.	BASIC TAX RECEIPT WITH ITIONER'S PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P6	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RESPECT TO THE 2ND PET DATED 17.03.2017.	BASIC TAX RECEIPT WITH ITIONER'S PROPERTY
EXHIBIT P7	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND 06.11.2020.	ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED
EXHIBIT P8	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST 06.11.2020.	ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED
EXHIBIT P9	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RESPONDENT ON 17.11.20	REPLY GIVEN BY THE 3RD 20.
EXHIBIT P10	PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITIONER BY THE PUBL ROADS DIVISION ON 04.1	REPLY GIVEN TO THE 1ST IC WORKS DEPARTMENT, 2.2020.

M.C.Muralidharan v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.C.Muralidharan v. 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

Prabhakaran Nair, Vs State of Kerala

Girish T.C., Vs Union of India

Mr. Koshy Zacharia Karuvelil Vs Mr. Vishnu Raj

Nagarajan Vs the Tahsildar (Survey)

Gopuran Associates Vs Asset Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Mary W/O Vavachan Vs District Collector, Idukki