IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 W.A.No. 2663 of 2009 AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.3240/2009 Dated 04/03/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONER: GEORGE THOMAS, AGED 38 YEARS S/O THOMAS ABRAHAM, KOCHUPURAKKAL HOUSE PATHAPPUZHA P.O., POONJAR, THEKKEKKARA KOTTAYAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.LIJO KURIAN JOSE SRI.MANU TOM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. THE ASST. REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES (GENERAL), MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM 2. THE MEENACHIL EAST URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK, LTD. NO.4266 POONJAR THEKKEKKARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT REP BY THE GENERAL MANAGER Addl. R3. THE RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY & LAND RECORDS, CHANGANACHERRY,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT Addl. R4. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT Addl. R5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, POONJAR THEKKEKARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. Addl. R6. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, MEENACHIL KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. Addl. R7. P.C.VARKEY, AGED 82 YEARS, PERUMPALLIKUNNEL HOUSE POONJAR.P.O., VALATHOOKKU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 581. Addl. R8. PAYASKUTTY.P.V. AGED 44 YEARS, S/O P.C.VARKEY, PERUMPALLIKUNNEL HOUSE, POONJAR.P.O., VALATHOOKKU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 581. Addl. R9. JOSEKUTTY.P.V. AGED 52 YEARS, S/O P.C.VARKEY, PERUMPALLIKUNNEL HOUSE, POONJAR.P.O., VALATHOOKKU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 581. Addl. R10. TOM FRANCIS, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O FRANCIS, PALAKKATTUKUNNEL, ARUNAPURAM(P.O.), ARUNAPURAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 574. (Additional respondents 3 to 10 impleaded as per order dated 16-7-2010 in I.A.541/2010) ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL FOR R2 SRI.BINU PAUL FOR R2 SRI.P.C.HARIDAS FOR R-10 SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER (CO-OP.) FOR SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No.2663 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of August 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant was the successful bidder in an “auction sale” of an immovable property conducted by Meenachil East Urban Co-operative Bank, Poonjar. The property involved in the sale having an extent of 74 Ares was situated in block No.74, Re.Sy.No.10/5 of Thekkekkara Village. 2. But the appellant did not get the property conveyed to his name, though several requests were made by him before the bank in this regard. Initially, it appears, that the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Bank had issued a direction to the bank to convey the property to the appellant. But still nothing happened. 3. It was in the above circumstances that the appellant approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for appropriate reliefs. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the dispute and incongruities surrounding the title and identity of the property auctioned by the Bank have to be resolved first of all. The learned Single Judge therefore made it clear that it would be open to the appellant to take appropriate steps by approaching the bank directly. The said judgment is impugned in this appeal. 4. When this case came up for consideration, on the earlier occasion, it was noticed that there was some confusion with regard to the identity of the W.A.No.2663 OF 2009 :: 2 :: property alleged to have been sold by the bank in auction. Therefore, we deemed it fit and proper to direct the Taluk Surveyor to conduct survey of not only the property involved in the auction sale, but also the property over which respondent No.10 claimed exclusive possession and title. 5. The Taluk Surveyor, Mr.Babu.M.R., has completed survey and submitted his report along with the survey plan before us. In his report, he has stated that the property which was sold by the Bank is in fact situated in resurvey No.10/2 and 33/3 in block Nos.74, 71 respectively, (Thandaper No.1232) in Poonjar Thekkekkara Village. In other words, the Taluk Surveyor has found that the property which was sold by the Bank was not situated in Resurvey No.10/5 of Block No.74. It is also found by the Surveyor that the property which was sold did not have an extent of 74 ares as notified, but the actual extent is only 64 ares. The Surveyor states that the shortage of 10 ares appears to have occurred because of the existence of Thodu Puramboke on the southern and eastern boundary of the property. 6. We refrain from making any comment on the data furnished by the Taluk Surveyor, since learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is prepared to take the property which is now identified by the Taluk Surveyor albeit with a lesser extent. The appellant who is present in court submits before us that he is prepared to get the said property conveyed in his name, if the Bank will do so. W.A.No.2663 OF 2009 :: 3 :: 7. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that the bank is prepared to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant, if he is willing to accept the property as identified by the Taluk Surveyor. The report and plans submitted by the Taluk Surveyor are taken on record as Ext.X1 series. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant may be given liberty to pursue the other remedies available to him in respect of the deficit in extent. We do not find any reason why the appellant cannot do so, if law permits. 9. Since the property has been already identified by the Taluk Surveyor with reference to the survey records maintained by the Survey Department, we do not find any reason why the registering authority will refuse to register the document, if the Bank and the appellant are prepared to do so by paying requisite stamp and registration fee in this regard. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes