Disposed

Mohan R, v. Tahsildar

Kerala HC8 Mar 2022WP(C)/5417/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala High Court in WP(C) 5417 of 2022 disposed of a petition for property demarcation. Due to dispute facts on whether the application was received, the Court directed the petitioners to furnish a fresh copy before the respondent and set a three-month deadline for action.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioners to present a fresh copy of the application (Ext.P7) before the 2nd respondent within two weeks and the respondent to act within three months.

Mohan R, Vs Tahsildar — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 5417 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 MOHAN R, AGED 60 YEARS S/O. RATHNAVEL, SAROVARAM, ADITHYA NAGAR, KANJIKODE, PUDUSSERY CENTRAL, PALAKKAD DT. KERALA STATE, 678 621.

¶8

2 AKHILA A, W/O. ARUMUGAM, 2/4, 17/2 RK GARDENS, VELLALORE, THENEESWARAKOVIL STREET, VTC, COIMBATORE DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, 641111.

¶9

3 PARAMESWARI S, AGED 52 YEARS D/O. RATHNAVEL AND W/O. SELVAKUMAR, 9 BEEMARAYAR MAIN STREET, DHARAPURAM, TIRUPPUR, TAMIL NADU-638 646.

¶10

4 VISWANATHAN RATHNAVEL, AGED 56 YEARS S/O. RATHNAVEL, NO. 797, 17TH MAIN ROAD, ERITHITTAM, MUGAPAAIR WEST, MOGAPPAIR, THIRUVALLUR, TAMIL NADU, 600037, REPRESENTED BY BROTHER 1ST PETITIONER:- MOHAN R, S/O. RATHNAVEL, AGED 60 YEARS, SAROVARAM, ADITHYA NAGAR, KANJIKODE, PUDUSSERY CENTRAL, PALAKKAD DT. KERALA STATE, 678 621.

¶11

5 VIJAYALAKSHMI R, AGED 59 YEARS D/O. RATHNAVEL AND W/O. VIJAYAN MADATHIL, A16-A, NEW CIVIL NAGAR, PALAKKAD 676001, REPRESENTED BY BROTHER 1ST PETITIONER, MOHAN R, S/O. RATHNAVEL, AGED 60 YEARS, SAROVARAM, ADITHYA NAGAR, KANJIKODE, PUDUSSERY CENTRAL, PALAKKAD DT. KERALA STATE, 678 621.

¶12

6 SREENIVASAN R, AGED 47 YEARS S/O. RATHNAVEL AND W/O. VIJAYAN MADATHIL, A16-A, NEW CIVIL NAGAR, PALAKKAD 676001, REPRESENTED BY BROTHER 1ST PETITIONER, MOHAN R, S/O. RATHNAVEL, AGED 60 YEARS, SAROVARAM, ADITHYA NAGAR, KANJIKODE, PUDUSSERY CENTRAL, PALAKKAD DT. KERALA STATE, 678 621.

¶13

7 KRISHNAVENI,

¶14

WP(C) NO. 5417 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

AGED 55 YEARS D/O. RATHNAVEL 10/15, SUBBAIYA GOUNDAVEEDHI, KUPPUSAMIPURAM, MAIN ROAD, TIRUPPUR, TC MARKET , TIRUPPUR, TAMIL NADU, 641604, REPRESENTED BY BROTHER 1ST PETITIONER MOHANR, S/O. RATHNAVEL, AGED 60 YEARS, SAROVARAM, ADITHYA NAGAR, KANJIKODE, PUDUSSERY CENTRAL, PALAKKAD DT. KERALA STATE, 678 621.

¶17

8 GANESH RATHINAVEL, AGED 46 YEARS S/O. RATHNAVEL, 175, EAST PATTAKKARA STREET, KALLUKADI MEDU, ERODE, ERODE, TAMIL NADU, 638 001, REPRESENTED BY BROTHER 1ST PETITIONER, MOHAN R, S/O. RATHNAVEL, AGED 60 YEARS, SAROVARAM, ADITHYA NAGAR, KANJIKODE, PUDUSSERY CENTRAL, PALAKKAD DT. KERALA STATE 678 621.

¶18

9 SARASVATHI DHANAKODI, AGED 75 YEARS D/O. RATHNAVEL AND C/O. DHANAKODI, 146, WATER TANK ROAD, MAMARATHUPALAYAM, AMMAN NAGAR 4TH STREET, PERIYA SEMUR, ERODE, TAMIL NADU, 638004, REPRESENTED BY BROTHER 1ST PERIYA SEMUR, ERODE, TAMILNADU, 638 004, REPRESENTED BY BROTHER 1ST PETITIONER MOHAN R, S/O. RATHNAVEL, AGED 60 YEARS, SAROVARAM, ADITHYA NAGAR, KANJIKODE, PUDUSSERY CENTRAL, PALAKKAD DT. KERALA STATE, 678 621.

¶19

BY ADV SHOBY K.FRANCIS

¶20

RESPONDENTS:

¶21

1 TAHSILDAR, CHITTOOR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, CHITTOOR P .O, PIN 678 101, PALAKKAD.

¶22

2 ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, CHITTOR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, CHITTOOR P.O, PIN

¶23

WP(C) NO. 5417 OF 2022

¶24

¶25

678 101, PALAKKAD.

¶26

3 TALUK SURVEYOR, CHITTOOR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, CHITTOOR P.O, PIN 678 101, PALAKKAD.

¶27

4 VILLAGE OFFICER, KODUVAYOOR 1 VILLAE, KODUVAYOOR P.O, PIN 678 501, PALAKKAD.

¶28

5 SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR, KODUVAYOOR, P.O, KODUVAYOOR, PIN 678 501, PALAKKAD.

¶29

OTHER PRESENT:

¶30

SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY SR.G.P.

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

WP(C) NO. 5417 OF 2022

¶33

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Amidst of various assertions, averments and contentions made and urged in this writ petition, all which the petitioners require is a direction to the 2^nd respondent to conduct survey and demarcation of the property covered by Ext.P4 title deed, in accordance with Rule 27 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules, 1962, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶36

Sri.Shobi K. Francis – learned counsel

¶37

appearing for the petitioners, submitted that his clients have filed an application for the afore purpose, namely Ext.P7, as early as on 22/03/2021; and therefore, that refusal of the competent Authority to act upon it is illegal and unlawful. He, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that the relief sought for in this writ petition be allowed.

¶38

WP(C) NO. 5417 OF 2022

¶39

¶40

In response, Smt.Amminikutty – learned

¶41

Senior Government Pleader, submitted that, for one, Ext.P7 application has not been received by the the 2^nd respondent; and for the second, the petitioners themselves have averred in the writ petition that they have made another application seeking that the boundaries of their property be pointed out. She submitted that, therefore, unless the petitioners prefer Ext.P7 before the 2^nd respondent appropriately, no further action can be taken thereon.

¶42

Taking note of the afore submissions and since there is a clear disputation of facts as to whether Ext.P7 has been received by the 2^nd respondent, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition, in the following manner:

¶43

a) The petitioners shall present a fresh copy of

¶44

WP(C) NO. 5417 OF 2022

¶45

¶46

Ext.P7, along with a certified copy of this judgment, before the 2^nd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of its receipt.

¶47

(b) On Ext.P7 being so presented, the 2^nd respondent will take up and dispose of the same, after hearing the 1^st petitioner (as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners); 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 the same;

¶48

¶49

not been yet completed, as asserted by the petitioners, the 2^nd respondent shall also

¶50

WP(C) NO. 5417 OF 2022

¶51

¶52

advert to the old Survey Records, when the afore exercise is completed.

¶53

(d) I record the submissions of Sri. Shobi K.

¶54

Francis that his clients are only interested in action pursuant to Ext.P7; and, therefore, if any earlier application has been preferred– either for demarcation or for printing out the boundaries – same shall be disregarded by the competent Authority and necessary action taken only on the present application.

¶55

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶56

ANB

¶57

WP(C) NO. 5417 OF 2022

¶58

¶59

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5417/2022

¶60

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶61

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE PASSED BY THE
	SUB-COURT, PALKKAD IN OS NO. 78/1979 DATED 31.7. 1981.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A S NO. 240/1982 DATED 31.5.1990 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE EP NO. 64/1988 DATED 31.1.1983 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB-COURT, PALAKKAD.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE
	CERTIFICATE/ENGROSSED SALE DEED DATED
	2.2.1988 IN EP NO. 64/1983 IN OS NO. 78/1978 ISSUED BY THE SUB JUDGE PALAKKAD.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 31.8.2016 OF THE PETITIONER'S PREDECESSORS.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE FAMILY RELATION SHIP CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONERS PREDECESSOR DATED 11.8.2021.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM NO. 8 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS
	BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT AND FORWARDED TO THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.3.2021.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
	CERTIFICATE DATED 15.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

Mohan R, v. Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan R, v. Tahsildar

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

Ponamma, Vs the Tahsildar

Arakkachal Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Thomas M.C Vs State of Kerala

Mani Jacob Vs the District Registrar

Siddick P.A Vs the District Collector

Platinum Super Structures Pvt.Ltd., Vs State Bank of India