IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 36087 of 2008(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.T.JOSEPH, S/O.THOMAS, MEKKALATH HOUSE, PATHAMPUZHA P.O. VIA POONJAR. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE POONJAR THEKKEKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, POONJAR, KOTTAYAM 686582 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, POONJAR, THEKKEKARA, KOTTAYAM 686582. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT. SUDHA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.36087 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner states that from his property covered by Ext.P1 title deed, he cut certain Teak and Anjali trees, which according to him was for raising funds to meet the medical expenses of himself and his ailing wife. It is stated that immediately thereafter Ext.P3 stop memo was issued by the Village Officer, restraining the petitioner from removing the timber from the property. It is stated that subsequently by Ext.P4 the timber was given to his custody pending further adjudication of the matter. 2. On receipt of Exts.P3 and P4 the petitioner has filed Ext.P5 objection to Ext.P3. Petitioner submits that taking into account his objection, the property was surveyed, but without notice to him and a sketch was prepared and copies of which are Exts.P6 and P7. According to him, as WP(c).No.36087/08 2 Exts.P6 and P7 were erroneous, he filed Ext.P8 application to the 4th respondent requesting for resurvey of the property with notice to him. Petitioner submits that while Ext.P8 application is pending consideration of the 4th respondent, attempt is made by the respondents to dispose of the timber. It is in view of the aforesaid, this writ petition has been field praying for a direction to the respondent to survey the property and thereafter determine the title regarding the timber. 3. As already stated, though survey has been conducted and a sketch has been prepared vide Exts.P6 and P7, according to the petitioner that has been done without notice to him. Irrespective of the correctness of what he says, fact remains that disputing the corrections of Exts.P6 and P7, he has filed Ext.P8 application before the 4th respondent for re- surveying the property and on that basis to decide the title of the timber. 4. In my view when a genuine dispute has been raised by the petitioner about the correctness of Exts.P6 and P7 and has made an application for resurvey of the property by Ext.P8, the WP(c).No.36087/08 3 respondent should have conducted resurvey as applied for in Ext.P8, before proceeding to dispose of the timber. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 2 to 4 to conduct the survey of the property covered by Ext.P1 and prepare a sketch on that basis. On such resurvey, if the timber is found to be belonging to the petitioner, the petitioner will be permitted to dispose of the timber. On the other hand if the resurvey disclose that the timber does not belong to the petitioner as stated in Ext.P3 stop memo, the respondents will be free to appropriate the timber in accordance with law. The survey as above shall be conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment and with notice to the petitioner. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with copy of the writ petition before respondents 2 to 4 for compliance. vi (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE WP(c).No.36087/08 4