Disposed

Sandhia v. the State of Kerala Represented by the District Collector

Kerala HC24 May 2024WP(C)/17949/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged rejection of their applications to correct resurvey records that reduced their land extent, citing a discrepancy between the 1958 survey plan and 2022 resurvey plan on thodu width. The Court set aside the rejecting orders and directed the Tahsildar (Land Records) to reconsider with hearings within one month and accept tax provisionally.

What did the court decide?

Exts.P10, P10(a), P10(b) set aside; Tahsildar to reconsider Exts.P5-P7 afresh with hearing within one month; provisional acceptance of tax for property under Exts.P1-P4.

Sandhia Vs the State of Kerala Represented by the District… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 17949 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 SANDHIA AGED 52 YEARS ROMEO,W/OROMEO MARKOSE, CHERUKOTH HOUSE, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM MURI , KULASEKHARAMANGALAM P O, VAIKOM TALUK,, PIN - 686608

¶8

2 NIYA ROMY MARKOSE AGED 25 YEARS D/O ROMEO MARKOSE, CHERUKOTHHOUSE,KULASEKHARAMANGALAMVILLAGE,KULASEKHA RAMA NGALAM MURI , KULASEKHARAMANGALAM P O, VAIKOM TALUK, , REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY AND HER MOTHER SANDHIA ROMEO W/O ROMEO MARKOSE CHERUKOTH HOUSE, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM MURI , KULASEKHARAMANGALAM P O, VAIKOM TALUK,PIN - 686608

¶9

3 SARAH ROMY MARKOSE AGED 20 YEARS D/O ROMEO MARKOSE, CHERUKOTHHOUSE,KULASEKHARAMANGALAMVILLAGE,KULASEKHA RAMA NGALAM MURI , KULASEKHARAMANGALAM P O, VAIKOM TALUK, , REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY AND HER MOTHER SANDHIA ROMEO W/O ROMEO MARKOSE CHERUKOTH HOUSE, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KULASEKHARAMANGALAM MURI , KULASEKHARAMANGALAM P O, VAIKOM TALUK, PIN - 686608

¶10

BY ADVS. P.K.MURALEEDHARAN SUNU P.JOHN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AGED 20 YEARS KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002

¶13

: 2 :

¶14

W.P.(C). No.17949 of 2023

¶15

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VADAYAR VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686605

¶16

3 THE TALUK SURVEYOR VAIKOM TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM, P.O. VAIKOM, PIN - 686141

¶17

4 THE TAHSILDAR,(LAND RECORDS) VAIKOM TALUK TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM P O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT., PIN - 686141

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

GP-DEEPA V

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.(C). No.17949 of 2023

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

¶24

- - - - W.P.(C) No.17949 of 2023

¶25

- - - - Dated this the 24^th day of May, 2024

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P5(a), P6(a) and P7(a) series of reports, Exts.P10, P10(a) and P10(b) series of orders and Ext.P11(a) plan.

¶28

It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioners are mother and children who are absolute owners in occupation of landed property lying in Vadayar village, Vaikom Taluk. By virtue of Ext.Pl release deed, the husband of the 1^st petitioner released his undivided interest over the property purchased in the joint name of husband and wife as per Ext.P2 sale deed. The 1^st petitioner is the absolute owner of the property obtained as per Ext.P1 release deed and thus the 1^st petitioner is having a total extent of 90.5 cents lying in survey No.299/1A and 299/1C as per the deeds. Later the 1^st petitioner executed Ext.P3 settlement deed in favour of the 2^nd petitioner and also executed Ext.P4 settlement deed in favour of the 3^rd petitioner. Thus the 1^st petitioner remains to have absolute title and possession over the balance 48.5 cents as per records, whereas petitioners 2 and 3 as per records is now having 21 cents

¶29

W.P.(C). No.17949 of 2023 : 4 :

¶30

each under their title by virtue of the above said settlement deeds executed by the 1^st petitioner. Resurvey was conducted and on a perusal of the resurvey plan, the petitioners came to know that the total extent of property was recorded wrongly and found that there is a difference in the measured extent of the property belonging to the petitioners. It is contended that as per the resurvey plan the property of the 1^st petitioner was reduced to 1.1570 hectares from 0.1821 hectares. Likewise, in the case of the 2^nd petitioner the same was reduced to 0.0780 hectares from 0.850 hectares and in the case of the 3^rd petitioner it was reduced from 0.0850 hectares to 0.0803 hectares. Realising the difference in the extent of property, the petitioners have preferred separate applications before the resurvey authorities for correcting the mistakes, as per Exts.P5, P6 and P7. On the said applications, reports were submitted by the Taluk Surveyor as per Exts.P5(a), P6(a) and P7(a) respectively. In the said reports the stand taken by the authorities is that there is no anomaly in the resurvey and that certain extent of property claimed to be in the possession of the petitioners is part of the puramboke thodu on the southern side of the property of the petitioners. To verify the factual position of the existence of the thodu puramboke on the southern boundary of the property of the

¶31

W.P.(C). No.17949 of 2023

¶32

: 5 :

¶33

petitioners, Ext.P8 application was filed by the 1^st petitioner before the local authority under the Right to Information Act. As per the relevant documents given by the local authority as per Exts.P9 and Exts.P9(a), there is no thodu puramboke lying in the survey numbers of the petitioners' property. The application submitted by the petitioners for correction of the resurvey mistakes has been rejected as per Exts.P10, P10(a) and P0(b) orders upholding the report submitted by the Taluk Surveyor, which is produced as Exts. P5(a), P6(a) and P7(a). The petitioners relying on Ext.P11, which is the old survey plan dated 21.04.1958 would submit that the width of the thodu in the said plan is 49 links whereas in the resurvey plan dated 12.10.2022, which is produced as Ext.P11(a), the width of the thodu is marked as 16 metres. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that 49 links is approximately 9.80 metres and in Ext.P11(a), the width of the thodu is shown as 16 metres which is apparently a mistake on the face of the record. The petitioners would also submit that after execution of Exts.P3 and P4 documents, the property was mutated in the name of petitioners 2 and 3 and land tax was also received as is evident from Exts.P12 and P13 and in respect of the remaining property in the ownership and possession of the 1^st petitioner as per Ext.P14

¶34

: 6 :

¶35

W.P.(C). No.17949 of 2023

¶36

thandapper account. It is aggrieved by the reduction in the extent of land of the petitioners, they have approached this Court.

¶37

A detailed counter affidavit on behalf of the 4^th respondent

¶38

has been filed wherein paragraph 4 reads as follows:

¶39

“4. After the implementation of re-survey records in Vadayar Village, the first petitioner's land is comprised in resurvey No.159/6 with an extent of 15.70 Ares, the second petitioner's property is comprised in Re survey No.159/9 with an extent of 07.80 Ares and the third petitioner's property is comprised in Re survey No. 159/10 with an extent of 08.03 Ares in Re survey Block No. 19. According to the re- survey records the extent of land of all petitioners are less than that of the document area. In this circumstances the petitioners submitted separate applications before the fourth respondent, the Tahsildar (LR), Taluk Office, Vaikom for rectifying the area difference in re-survey records. On the basis of this applications the Taluk Surveyor conducted a field verification and submitted a report to the fourth respondent. According to this report the actual possession of the petitioners is including a part of the puramboke land (Thodu) located on the southern boundary of the total property. The purambok land is comprised in re- survey No. 159/11. Re-survey No. 159/11 is correlated to the old survey No. 297/1, 297/15 and 298/241. So it is clear that the petitioners have no document right in Re survey No. 159/11. In this case, the petitioners have been informed in writing that it would not be possible to make solution on the application. At this juncture the

¶40

W.P.(C). No.17949 of 2023

¶41

: 7 :

¶42

petitioners approached this Honourable Court with this Writ Petition.”

¶43

Admittedly tax was paid for the whole extent of land as evident from Exts.P12 and P13 tax receipts and Ext.P14 thandapper account. A perusal of Ext.P11, which is the old survey plan dated 21.04.1958, the width of the thodu is shown as 49 links, but a perusal of Ext.P11(a), which the resurvey plan dated 12.10.2022, the width of the thodu on the southern side of the property of the petitioners is shown as 16 metres. A perusal of the impugned orders would reveal that none of these matters were considered in a proper manner and the applications submitted by the petitioners have been rejected without assigning any reasons, except to state that certain portion of the property of the petitioners is included in the thodu puramboke on the southern side. The contentions raised based on Exts.P11 old survey plan and P11(a) resurvey plan, were not considered while issuing the impugned orders.

¶44

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 4^th respondent. Accordingly, Exts.P10, P10(a), P10(b) orders are set aside with a consequential direction to the 4^th

¶45

W.P.(C). No.17949 of 2023

¶46

: 8 :

¶47

respondent to reconsider the applications submitted by the petitioners as Exts. P5, P6 and P7 and take fresh decision in the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Taking into consideration the contention of the petitioners on the strength of Exts.P12 to P14, there will be a direction to the 4^th respondent to accept tax in respect of the property covered by Exts.P1 to P4 documents provisionally, subject to the outcome of the proceedings before the 4^th respondent.

¶48

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶49

Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

¶50

sm/

¶51

: 9 :

¶52

W.P.(C). No.17949 of 2023

¶53

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17949/2023

¶54

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶55

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF T 159/2002 OF SRO 28/5/2002	HE RELEASE DEED NO. I THALAYOLAPARAMBU DATED
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE OF SRO THALAYOLAPA	SALE DEED NO. 653/1997 RAMBU DATED 20/2/1997
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF	THE SETTLEMENT DEED
	NO.75/2021 OF SRO 13/01/2021	THALAYOLAPARAMBU DATED
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF T 74/2021 OF SRO 13/01/2021	HE SETTLEMENT DEED NO. THALAYOLAPARAMBU DATED
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FILED SANDHIA ROMEO DATE	THE RE-SURVEY ADALATH BY THE FIRST PETITIONER D 26/10/2022
Exhibit P5(a)	A TRUE CO OF THE OF THETALUK SURVEV	REPORT DATED 26/12/2022 OR
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMI PETITIONER NIYA 26/10/2022	THE RE-SURVEY ADALATH TTED BY THE SECOND ROMY MARKOSE DATED
Exhibit P6(a)	A TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE SURVEYOR ON	REPORT DATED 26/12/2022 EXT. P6 APPLICATION
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED	THE RE-SURVEY ADALATH 26/10/2022
Exhibit P7(a)	A TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE SURVEYOR ON	REPORT DATED 26/12/2022 EXT. P7 APPLICATION
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF TH BY THE FIRST PETIT INFORMATION ACT BEFORE THE PANCHA OFFICER	E APPLICATION SUBMITTED IONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO VIDE DATED 16/1/2023 YATH PUBLIC INFORMATION
Exhibit P9	A TRUE COPY OF TH ASSET REGISTER DAT THALAYOLAPARAMBU	E RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ED NIL OF THE PANCHAYATH
Exhibit P9(a)	A TRUE COPY OF TH GIVEN BY THE PUBL AND DEPUTY TAHSILD	E REPLY DATED 2/2/2023 IC INFORMATION OFFICER AR, TALUK OFFICE VAIKOM
Exhibit P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND RECORDS DATED	ORDER OF THE TAHSILDAR, 28/1/2023

¶56

: 10 :

¶57

W.P.(C). No.17949 of 2023

¶58

Exhibit P10(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/1/2023 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, LAND RECORDS, VAIKOM Exhibit P10(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/1/2023 ISSUED TO THE THIRD PETITIONER BY THE TAHSILDAR, LAND RECORDS Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE OLD SURVEY PLAN DATED 21/4/1958 OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY AND THE THODU LYING BY THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY Exhibit P11(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE RE-SURVEY PLAN DATED 12/10/2022 OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY AND THE THODU LYING BY THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT VIDE DATED 20/4/2021IN THE NAME OF NIYA ROMY MARKOSE T.P NO. 28281 Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 20/4/2021 IN THE NAME OF SARAH ROMY MARKOSE, THE THIRD PETITIONER T.P NO. 28282

¶59

Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE THUNDAPPER ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF THE FIRST PETITIONER ISSUED VIDE DATED 25/3/2023

Sandhia v. the State of Kerala Represented by the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandhia v. the State of Kerala Represented by the District Collector

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

R. Kamalavathy Vs the Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue)

K. M. Shamsudheen Vs State of Kerala

Anita Gopinadhan Vs Harshil R Meena IAS

G. Valsalakumari Vs State of Kerala

Giyomol K Sasi Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan Vs District Geologist