IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 9637 of 2000(V) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- E.RAJENDRAN, AGED 42, S/O. LATE KUNJIRAMAN NAMBIAR.P, EDATHATT HOUSE, KANITHADAM, PERINGOME.P.O., VIA. PAYYANNUR, TALIPARAMBA. BY ADVS. MR.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR, SMT.S.R.SARADAMANI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINGOME. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. T.K. VIPIN DAS. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 9637/2000-V: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED DTD. 24/05/1969, THE PETITIONER'S FATHER OBTAINED THE PROPERTY FROM ONE MR. K.U. JOHN. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD. 05/03/1996 ISSUED BY THE R.3. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P. No.9637 OF 2000 ---------------------------------------- Dated, 3rd June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner who claimed that he is the absolute owner of the property with improvements situate in R.S.317/1A measuring 9 acre and 70 cents of Peringome Amsom, Taliparamba taluk, approached this Court with a prayer for a direction directing the 3rd respondent to accept the tax of the above mentioned property and to issue receipt acknowledging the payment made by the petitioner. It is also prayed for a direction to the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the above mentioned property. According to the petitioner, the property in question was originally obtained by the petitioner's father, namely, late Sri Kunjiraman Nambiar from one Sri K.V.John and he was regularly paying the tax. But the 3rd respondent refused to accept the tax. 2. A detailed counter affidavit is filed for and on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 ,wherein, it is stated O.P.9637/2000 -:2:- that the land covered by R.S.317/1A is a vast area measuring 1479.04 acres and, out of this, 864.45 acres of land had been taken possession as surplus land. According to the counter affidavit, the remaining extent was under the possession of others including the surrenderer in this case, namely, the above mentioned K.V.John. According to the respondents, the land covered by the document which produced by the petitioner in this writ petition may be anywhere in OS.317/1A, out of the land under the interim management by the Government. According to the respondents, the boundaries shown in the document has got no definite idea as to where the land possessed by the petitioner lies and it is shown circled by the plantation property. Thus, according to the respondents, the petitioner has got no clear title to prove the same. It is also specifically stated in the counter affidavit that the land claimed by the petitioner is the government land taken possession years ago and the petitioner had never occupied this land. It is also O.P.9637/2000 -:3:- specifically mentioned in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit that the respondents have no intention to dispossess the petitioner from the land covered by the document if the same is not included in the government land taken possession. According to the respondents, an error occurred on the part of the re-survey officials that a portion of the government land has been recorded in favour of the petitioner's father, but actually, the petitioner or petitioner's father has not occupied or possessed this land. 3. In para 3 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated that during the survey works in Peringome village, certain extent of the surplus land was erroneously recorded in the name of private individuals and thereby made patta land. Thus, the surplus land was decreased in extent to 913.47 acres instead of 1126.43 acres. The above matter was taken up by the Village Officer Peringome and brought to the notice of the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Kannur. The above O.P.9637/2000 -:4:- matter was also brought to the notice of the camp officer, Survey Adalath, Peringome. Therefore, action in this regard is still pending. 4. In an identical case, this Court, by judgment dated 1.3.2006, has disposed of a writ petition, i.e., O.P.No.9638/2000 stating that in case any action is to be taken against the petitioner, he shall issue notice by the competent authority and his objections shall be considered and a speaking order shall also be passed and communicated the same to the petitioner therein. 5. As the extent of property in possession of the petitioner is under dispute, no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the respondents have admitted that there was some mistakes crept while resurvey was conducted and proceedings are pending, to rectify those defects, it is only just and proper to relegate the petitioner to approach the said authorities and to put his claim before them and to have a final decision on the O.P.9637/2000 -:5:- same on the basis of the proceedings already initiated for rectifying the defect that occurred during the resurvey. 6. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach the 3rd respondent with a properly framed representation and the 3rd respondent shall take up the matter with the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Kannur, who shall consider the representation after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and dispose of the same within a reasonable time. This Court, by order dated 29.3.2000 in C.M.P.No.16076/2000, ordered to maintain status quo. The respondents are directed to maintain status quo as ordered by this Court on 29.3.2000 till the disposal of the representation of the petitioner, if there is no intervening circumstances or development after passing the interim order by this Court referred to above. The petitioner is directed to make the representation within one month from today and to produce a copy of this judgment and, if such representation is made, the O.P.9637/2000 -:6:- respondents are further directed to dispose of the same within six months thereafter. The Original Petition is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- O.P.9637/2000 -:7:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No.9637/2000 JUDGMENT Dated: 3.6.2009