Allowed

P. Prasad v. Sreejith P.R.

Kerala HC31 Jul 2024WP(C)/26959/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that pending civil suits cannot justify refusal by land survey authorities to conduct boundary demarcation. The survey officer is empowered under the Act to determine disputed boundaries, subject to the eventual outcome of civil litigation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents Nos.4 and 5 to conduct and complete the survey and demarcate boundaries within three months.

P. Prasad Vs Sreejith P.R. — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 31^ST DAY OF JULY 2024 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 26959 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P. PRASAD

¶8

AGED 63 YEARS, S/O P G PANICKER @ GOVINDA PANICKER, PENSIONER, RESIDING AT ATHIRA HOUSE, UDAYAMPEROOR, POOTHOTTA P.O., PIN- 682307

¶9

BY ADVS. AMAL GEORGE MANU GEORGE KURUVILLA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 SREEJITH P.R. S/O. LATE RAJAN, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOTHOTTA. P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. PIN - 682307

¶12

2 SREEJA P.R., D/O. LATE RAJAN, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOTHOTTA. P.O.,KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. PIN - 682307

¶13

3 REMANI RAJAN W/O. LATE RAJAN, PEEDIKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOTHOTTA. P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. PIN - 682307

¶14

4 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS) KANNAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM PIN - 682011

¶15

5 THE TALUK SURVEYOR KANNAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM PIN – 682011

¶16

BY ADV RAJEEV KOYICKAL

¶17

B.S.SYAMANTHAK, GP

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C) No. 26959/2023

¶20

..2..

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P12 communication issued by the respondent No.4.

¶23

The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 application before the respondent No.4 to take steps to conduct a survey to demarcate the boundaries of the property belonging to him covered by Ext.P1 as contemplated under Rule 43 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act. The respondent No.4 forwarded Ext.P7 to the Village Officer, Manakkunam Village for further actions. Since there was no response, the petitioner submitted another request before the respondent No.4 as Ext.P8 to expedite the steps to conduct the survey. Thereafter, the respondent No.5, Taluk Surveyor issued Ext.P10 Form 12 notice to the petitioner and neighbouring property owners including the respondent No.3 intimating about the conducting of demarcation of the boundaries of the petitioner's property covered by Ext.P1. On receipt of Ext.P10, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 sent Ext.P11 complaint to the respondent Nos.4 and 5, stating that demarcation of the boundaries should not be conducted because of the pendency of

¶24

W.P.(C) No. 26959/2023

¶25

..3..

¶26

the cases existing between the parties. Thereafter the respondent No.4 issued impugned Ext.P12 notice to the petitioner stating that the demarcation of boundaries of the petitioner's property cannot be carried out because of the pendency of O.S.No.15/2022 and O.S.No.43/2022 between the parties. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶27

I have heard Sri. George Thomas (Mevada), the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri.Amal George, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Rajeev Koyickal, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri.B.S.Syamanthak, the learned Government Pleader.

¶28

Ext.P1 would prove prima-facie title of the petitioner over the property in question. Of course, there are civil suits between the parties in respect of the property. O.S.No.43/2022 is a suit filed by the petitioner against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for injunction. O.S.No.15/2022 is a suit filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 against the petitioner for declaration that Ext.P1 title deed is not a valid one and seeking partition of the properties covered by it. In the said suit, an application for interim injunction was filed

¶29

W.P.(C) No. 26959/2023

¶30

..4..

¶31

and interim injunction was initially granted. However, after hearing both sides, injunction order was vacated with a finding that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not establish a prima facie case and approached the Court with unclean hands. The property in question is in the possession of the petitioner. Even though, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 challenged the said order of the trial court before the appellate court, it was dismissed as per Ext.P13 judgment. In these circumstances, for the mere pendency of the suits, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 cannot refuse to conduct a survey to demarcate the boundaries of the property. Section 10 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act empowers the survey officer to determine and record a disputed boundary with reasons. Needless to say, the boundaries, if any, fixed by the survey authorities under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act shall be subject to the outcome of the suits pending between the parties before the Civil Court.

¶32

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 to conduct and complete the survey of the property of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 and demarcate its

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 26959/2023

¶34

..5..

¶35

boundaries, after giving notice to the petitioner as well as the

¶36

respondent Nos. 1 to 3, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶39

APA

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 26959/2023

¶41

..6..

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26959/2023

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶44

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE PH0TOCOPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 1824 OF 2021 OF SRO THRIPUNITHURA DATED 06/10/2021
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PH0TOCOPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2447 OF 2021 OF SRO THRIPUNITHURA.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 25/04/2023 EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RECEIPT OF RS. 40 TOWARDS THE BASIC TAX OF THE 5.90 ARES OF LAND
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JOINT ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUB COURT, IN IA NO. 3 OF 2022
	AND IA NO. 6 OF 2022 IN OS 15 OF 2022 DATED 07/04/2022
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 18/07/2022 IN WP (C) NO. 19493 OF 2022 AND WP (C) 21368 OF 2022
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/08/2022 PASSED IN WA 1098 OF 2022 AND WA 1101 OF 2022
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 01/08/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE TALUK OFFICE KANAYANNUR
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 21/10/2022 ISSUED BY THE TALUK OFFICE KANAYANNUR
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11/05/2023 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS) KANAYANNUR TALUK TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE FORM NO. 12 NOTICE DATED 03/07/2023 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TALUK SURVEYOR KANAYANNUR TALUK

¶45

..7..

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 26959/2023

¶47

EXHIBIT P11	TRUE	PHOTOCOP	Y OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
	07/07 IS O ACT	/2023 SENT BTAINED BY	BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 WHICH THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE ISSUE RECOR	PHOTOCOPY D BY THE DS) KANAYA	OF THE LETTER DATED 12/07/2023 4TH RESPONDENT TAHSILDAR (LAND NNUR TALUK TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE OF ERNAK	PHOTOCOPY 2022 BY ULAM DATED	OF THE ORDER PASSED IN CMA 33 THE HON'BLE DISTRICT COURT 7/10/2023
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE	PHOTOVOPY	OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE
	PROPE WAY I MADHA	RTY TO GI N WHICH TH VI	VE A CLEAR INDICATION OF THE E PROPERTY WAS SETTLED BY SMT.
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE BY RE	PHOTOCOPY SPONDENTS	OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED 1 TO 3 IN OS 629 OF 2006
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE REMAN PANCH	PHOTOCOPY I RAJAN AYAT DATED	OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO SMT. BY THE UDAYAMPEROOR GRAMA 21/08/2023

¶48

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶49

EXHIBIT	R1(a) TRUE	COPY	OF O.S.NO.15/2022FILED BY THE
	RESPO SUB C	NDENTS OURT E	1 TO 3 BEFORE THE 2ND ADDITIONAL RNAKULAM
EXHIBIT	R1(b) TRUE PETIT ERNAK	COPY IONER ULAM	OF O.S.NO.43/2022FILED BY THE BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT

P. Prasad v. Sreejith P.R.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Prasad v. Sreejith P.R.

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

T.N.Peethambaran Vs the District Collector

T.Aravindan, Vs State of Kerala

Viswanathan.K.N Vs District Collector

Vijeesh v, Vs the Village Officer

Manu Joseph Vs Kochi Metro Rail Project

Edakandathil Ali Vs State of Kerala