IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2011 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1933 RP.No. 92 of 2011(J) -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER DATED 22.12.2010 IN WP(C).38100/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ 3RD PARTY -------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH JOSEPH, KALLARACKAL HOUSE PRAVITHANAM KARA, BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. FARIS P.H, S/O.HAMEED, 29 YEARS, PATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE PANAYAPPILLY, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI – 682 005 2. ABDUL RAHES, S/O.ABDULLA, MUBARAK MANZIL HOUSE KADIYUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 001 3. JOSEPH FERDINAND REBELLOW, S/O.FRANCIS PALLEKKATTIL HOUSE, KANNAMALY, KOCHI-682 005 4. FAREN FEBINSON REBELLOW, S/O.FRANCIS PALLEKKATTIL HOUSE, KANNAMALY, KOCHI-682 005 5. T.K.SAKEER HUSSAIN, S/O.T.K.KUNJU MOHAMMED THURUTHIPPALLY HOUSE, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI – 682002 6. ASEEM P.H, S/O.HAMEED, PATTARAMBIL HOUSE PANAYAPPILLY, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI – 682 005 7. THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, IDUKKI RP.No. 92 of 2011 8. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MARAYUR, IDUKKI 9. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI 10. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.JAIBY PAUL ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON FOR R1-6 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2011, ALONG WITH R.P.NO.107 OF 2011. THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dmb ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------- R.P.Nos. 92 & 107 OF 2011 In W.P(C) No. 38100 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2011 O R D E R The petitioners are seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 22.12.2010 in W.P(C) No.38100 of 2010. 2. The W.P(C) No.38100 of 2010 was filed by the party respondents in these review petitions, complaining that in spite of having made Ext.P2 series of applications for survey and demarcation of their properties situated in Resurvey No.131/1 of Marayur Village, the official respondents did not take any action thereon. On this basis they sought a direction from this Court to require Taluk Surveyor to complete the survey and demarcation of the properties. This Court directed that the proceedings of survey shall be completed at any rate within eight weeks of production of a copy of the judgment. 3. In these review petitions, the review petitioners claim to be the legal heirs of Late Smt.Maryamma. According to the review petitioners, being the legal heirs of Late Smt.Maryamma, they are in possession and enjoyment of more than 30 Acres of R.P.Nos. 92 and 107 OF 2011 In W.P(C) No. 38100 of 2010 2 land, where they are carrying on their agricultural activities. 4. It is stated that during the resurvey, in the Thandaper Register, names of certain strangers were inserted and on that basis, a Power of Attorney was executed in favour of a person called Murugan, who in turn executed documents in respect of their property. It is stated that two such documents were challenged before the Sub Court, Thodupuzha in O.S.No.124/2003 and that by judgment dated 10.6.2005, the documents were declared to be void and not binding. 5. It is stated that there were certain other documents which were unknown to the petitioners and that it is on the basis of those documents, the properties were sold in favour of the writ petitioners. It is further stated that, for getting the Thandaper register itself rectified, proceedings have already been initiated and that Annexure A12 in R.P.No.92 of 2011 is a report submitted by the Village Officer to the Tahsildar in that connection. Therefore, according to review petitioners, the writ petitioners claim ownership and title over properties which belong exclusively to the review petitioners, and that it is seeking survey and demarcation of these properties, that the R.P.Nos. 92 and 107 OF 2011 In W.P(C) No. 38100 of 2010 3 applications were made before the Taluk Surveyor. 6. It is stated that, despite the existence of the aforesaid controversy, without impleading the review petitioners, the writ petition was filed and an order as above, was obtained. According to review petitioners, having regard to all the above, the petitioners cannot seek survey and demarcation of the property. 7. On the other hand, in the counter affidavit filed by the writ petitioners it is contended that Resurvey No.131/1 of Marayur Village comprise of about 20 Hectares of land. It is stated that they have title over about 27 Acres of land. It is their case that the property claimed by them is different from that of the review petitioners and that therefore they are entitled to have their property surveyed and demarcated. 8. From the pleadings, it is evident that several disputed questions of fact are raised by both parties. On the one hand, the review petitioners are claiming that properties in respect of which title is claimed by the writ petitioners are the one, in their possession and ownership. On the other hand, writ petitioners claim that the properties are different and distinct. That apart, R.P.Nos. 92 and 107 OF 2011 In W.P(C) No. 38100 of 2010 4 the case of the review petitioners is that the Thandaper register is fabricated and that the title of the predecessor in interest of the writ petitioners itself is invalid and illegal. It is also their case that, proceedings for rectification of the Thandaper register are pending before the Revenue Authorities. 9. In the said circumstances, when the ownership and possession of the property itself is disputed, I do not think that unless those issues are adjudicated, this Court will be justified in directing that the Revenue Authorities to act upon the application made by the writ petitioners for survey and demarcation of the boundaries of the disputed property. In that view of the matter, I am satisfied that the judgment is vitiated due to errors appeared on the face of it and therefore the review petitions are allowed. The Judgment dated 22.12.2010 in W.P(C) No.38100 of 2010 is recalled. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE dmb