Disposed

Mary W/O Vavachan v. District Collector, Idukki

Kerala HC14 Mar 2022WP(C)/3389/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the District Collector's order cancelling an allotment of a Sub Division Number due to undefined boundaries. However, it directed the competent Authority to retain the application and conduct a fresh survey and allotment within three months after hearing interested parties.

What did the court decide?

Competent Authority to reconsider application for Sub Division Number allotment after hearing within three months and ensure boundaried survey before finalizing.

Mary W/O Vavachan Vs District Collector, Idukki — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1943

¶4

WP(C) NO. 3389 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MARY W/O VAVACHAN (LATE) AGED 60 YEARS CHEMMALA HOUSE, VALARA POST, MANNAMKANDOM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT , PIN - 685561 BY ADVS. S.JIJI PRATHEESH PRABHA

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA, PAINAVU POST, IDUKKI, PIN - 685603

¶9

2 SUB COLLECOTR, R.D.O. OFFICE COMPLEX, DEVIKULAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685613

¶10

3 DY. DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA, PAINAVU POST, IDUKKI, PIN - 685603

¶11

4 THE ADDITIONAL THAHASILDAR (L.R.) TALUK OFFICE COMPLEX, DEVIKULAM, DEVILKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI, PIN – 685613.

¶12

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MANNAMKANDOM VILLAGE OFFICE, ADIMALY POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685561

¶13

SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY SR.G.P.

¶14

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

¶15

WP(C) NO. 3389 OF 2022 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner says that her husband - late

¶18

Vavachan, obtained title over the property involved in this case through Ext.P1 and that pursuant thereto, the 3^rd respondent – Deputy Director of Survey issued Ext.P2 proceedings dated 14.02.2012 allotting a fresh Sub Division Number to it. She says that, however, on the basis of an alleged complaint preferred by another person, the 1^st respondent - District Collector intervened and issued Ext.P3

¶19

cancelling Ext.P2, but without making any provision as to the future course of action.

¶20

The petitioner says that, therefore, she had

¶21

no other option but to approach the District Collector for reconsideration through Ext.P4, but that since no action was taken thereon, she has now preferred Ext.P6 application again for allotment of

¶22

Sub Division Number to the property in question.

¶23

The petitioner thus prays that either Ext.P3

¶24

be set aside, or that Ext.P6 be directed to be taken

¶25

WP(C) NO. 3389 OF 2022 3

¶26

up and disposed of by the competent Authority without any further delay.

¶27

Shri.Jiji.S. - learned counsel for the petitioner, – the learned Senior Government Pleader

¶28

Smt.K.Amminikutty, submitted that, as is evident from

¶29

Ext.P3, the District Collector had no other option but to set aside Ext.P2 because the boundaries of the property in question has not been yet identified. She

¶30

submitted that, therefore, allotment of a Sub

¶31

Division Number, without clear delineated boundaries,

¶32

was illegal and hence argued that Ext.P3 is

¶33

irreproachable. She thus prayed that this writ

¶34

petition be dismissed.

¶35

Even if I am to find favour with the afore

¶36

submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader,

¶37

the fact remains that on the District Collector

¶38

setting aside Ext.P2, he ought to have made

¶39

provisions for further action - either for the land to be resurveyed or for the allotment of a fresh Sub Division Number as per law. His failure to do either

¶40

WP(C) NO. 3389 OF 2022 4

¶41

of these has now put the petitioner in a state of prejudice.

¶42

In the afore perspective, I am certain that

¶43

even if this Court is to confirm Ext.P3 for the

¶44

reasons stated therein, further action is necessary at the hands of the competent Authority.

¶45

For the afore reasons, I issue the following

¶46

directions:

¶47

(a) This writ petition is disposed of, confirming Ext.P3.

¶48

(b) Consequently, the competent Authority, which may either the 3^rd respondent – Deputy Director of Survey or the 4^th respondent – Additional Tahsildar (LR), will reconsider the petitioner's application for allotment of a Sub Division Number to the property in question, after affording her, as also

¶49

any other person who is interested, an opportunity of

¶50

being heard. This exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of

¶51

WP(C) NO. 3389 OF 2022 5

¶52

this judgment.

¶53

(c) On the afore exercise being completed, necessary orders will be issued by the competent Authority allotting an appropriate Sub Division Number to the property in question, based on its boundaries to be determined through the survey and

¶54

the said proceedings shall be communicated to the parties as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month therefrom.

¶55

(d) For the afore purpose, the petitioner shall

¶56

prefer an application in Form 8 under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules before the competent Authority, which is stated to be the 4^th respondent – Additional Tahsildar(LR) by the learned Senior Government Pleader, within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; in which event, the afore directions shall be complied with by the said Authority within the time frame above fixed.

¶57

At this time, the learned Senior Government

¶58

Pleader intervened to say that she is not sure if any

¶59

WP(C) NO. 3389 OF 2022 6

¶60

further orders have been issued either on Ext.P4 or Ext.P6. I am certain that even if such orders have been issued, it should not stand in the way of the afore directions being complied with; and I, therefore, reiteratingly order that, notwithstanding any orders that may have been issued after Ext.P3 had been settled, the afore exercise shall be completed within the time frames afore mentioned.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶63

JUDGE

¶64

MC/14.3

¶65

WP(C) NO. 3389 OF 2022 7

¶66

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3389/2022

¶67

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶68

Exhibit1	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 1940/1984 OF S.R.O. DEVIKULAM
Exhibit2	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14-02-2012
Exhibit3	TRUE TYPE WRITTEN COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 15-02-2013 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
Exhibit4	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15-03-2013
Exhibit5	TRUE COPY OF THE B.T. RECEIPT DATED 11- 05-2017 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit6	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10-01- 2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Mary W/O Vavachan v. District Collector, Idukki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mary W/O Vavachan v. District Collector, Idukki

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

Prabhakaran Nair, Vs State of Kerala

Girish T.C., Vs Union of India

Mr. Koshy Zacharia Karuvelil Vs Mr. Vishnu Raj

M.C.Muralidharan Vs District Collector

Nagarajan Vs the Tahsildar (Survey)

Gopuran Associates Vs Asset Homes Pvt. Ltd.