Allowed

Shaji Madhavan v. Taluk Surveyor

Kerala HC23 Mar 2023WP(C)/1796/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition where the petitioner sought to quash a rejection order preventing his statutory survey application (Ext.P3) from being considered due to a pending boundary dispute. The Court held that the statutory duty to survey prevailed over the dispute and directed the trappee authority to process the application within three months.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 is quashed; the 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 application and cause survey and measurement within three months.

Shaji Madhavan Vs Taluk Surveyor — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1796 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHAJI MADHAVAN
AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN,
KIZHAKKEKARAVILA HOUSE, KARIPPURAM ,
MULAVANA, KOLLAM - 691 503.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

 STIYA SIVAN
 K.R.RENJU
 ANILA ANTONY
 ASITHA M.M.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 TALUK SURVEYOR

¶12

TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM - 691 013.

¶13

2 TAHSILDAR ( LAND RECORDS ) TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM - 691 013.

¶14

3 VILLAGE OFFICER MULAVANA VILLAGE OFFICE, KUNDARA, KOLLAM- 691 501.

¶15

BY ADVS. BIMAL K NATH (SR GP)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO.1796 OF 2023 2

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a limited relief. He prays that Ext.P3 application filed by the petitioner for survey and demarcation of the property, which is subject matter of that application should be considered by the 2^nd respondent, in a proper manner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P3 application, which was submitted on 09-10-2019, was rejected by Ext.P5, on the ground that there is a boundary dispute pending in respect of the property and therefore Ext.P3 application cannot be considered.

¶20

Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader also. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, I am of the view that Ext.P5 cannot be sustained. Ext.P3 application filed by the petitioner is a statutory application filed under the provisions of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules, 1964. Notwithstanding the fact that there are boundary disputes, the 2^nd respondent is bound to carry out the survey measurement as requested for by

¶21

WP(C) NO.1796 OF 2023 3

¶22

the petitioner in Ext.P3.

¶23

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P5 is quashed and the 2^nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 application and take appropriate action to cause survey and measurement of the property, which is subject matter of Ext.P3, in accordance with law and after issuing notice to any affected parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶26

ats

¶27

WP(C) NO.1796 OF 2023 4

¶28

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1796/2023

¶29

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶30

`EXHIBIT`	`P1` `A TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 205/2011 OF` `KUNDARA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE IS PRODUCED`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2` `A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED` `20-04-2022 IS PRODUCED`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3` `A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 09/10/2019 OF` `THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS` `PRODUCED`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4` `A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 22/12/2022` `ISSUED BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH KUNDARA TO THE` `PETITIONER IS PRODUCED`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5` `A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25/10/2022 SENT BY` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER IS PRODUCED`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6` `REPORT DATED 20/06/2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS` `PRODUCED`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7` `THE PHOTOS OF THE HOUSE OF THE PETITIONER ARE` `PRODUCED`

Shaji Madhavan v. Taluk Surveyor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaji Madhavan v. Taluk Surveyor

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

Shahida Panangattummal Vs the Secretary

Alavi Vs the District Collector, Palakkad

Ananthakrishnan.K.v Vs Moospet Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, No 682

George Varghese Vs Kumplampoika Service Co-Operative Bank Represented by Secretary

Muhammad Rafeeq Vs Assistant Registrar of Co-Op. Societies (Genaral)

Nuhman Vs Assistant Registrar of Co-Op. Societies (Genaral) Manjeri