IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 32979 of 2010(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ T.RAJENDRAN, S/O.THANKAPPAN PILLA, VILAYIL PUTHEN VEEDU, USHUS NAGAR, HOUSE NO.4, AYATHIL CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL SMT.P.SHYAMA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691 001. 3. TAHASILDAR, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM-691 001. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK-691 010. 5. KOLLAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM. 6. BALACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.THANKAPPAN PILLAI RESIDING AT KOLLAM VISHVABHAVANA, NEAR ST.JUDE SCHOOL, ALUMMOODU.P.O., KOLLAM. FROM, VILAYAIL PUTHEN VEEDU, AYATHIL CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691 010. R5 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS,SC,KOLLAM MPT R6 BY ADV. SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.32979/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.3082/07. P2:- COPY OF THE CONSENT LETER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT CORPORATION. P3:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMTITED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. 138/2010. P5:- COPY OF THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION IN IA. NO.1028/2010 IN OS. NO.138/2010 P6:- COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER IN IA. NO.1028/2010. P7:- COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S REPORT IN OS. 138/2010. P8:- COPY OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P9:- COPY OF THE ADVOCATE NOTICE DTD. 19.4.2010 RECEIVED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P10:- COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. P11:- COPY OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 13.5.2010. P12:- COPY OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 29.7.2010. P13:- COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P14:- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH. P15:- COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P16:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT CORPORATION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R6(a):- COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.3082/2007 OF THE SRO ERAVIPURAM DTD. 14.8.07. R6(b):- COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2416/1978 OF THE SRO ERAVIPURAM DTD. 2.6.1978. R6(c):- COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.620/2010 OF ERAVIPURAM SRO DTD. 20.2.2010. W.P.(C) NO.32979/2010 R6(d):- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. NO.115/2010 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM DTD. 2/2010. R6(e):- COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DTD. 16.2.2010. R6(f):- COPY OF THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION IA. 1028/2010 DTD. 20.2.2010. R6(g):- COPY OF THE IA. NO.1168/2010 DTD. 1.3.2010. R6(h):- COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DTD. 3.4.2010. R6(i):- COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER, 6TH RESPONDENT AND OTHERS DTD. NIL. R6(j):- COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE CONCRETED BUILDING TAKEN ON 3.11.2010. R6(k):- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT WITH THE COUNTER CLAIM DTD. JUNE 2010. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.32979 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner and the 6th respondent are brothers. According to the petitioner 54.5 cents of land, situated in re- survey No.317/21 of Vadakkevila Village originally belonged to his mother. It would appear that now the property has been divided among her husband and the children. There was several disputes between the husband and the children, including boundary disputes and suits, such as O.P.No.138/10 filed by the petitioner, are pending before the Munsiff's Court, Kollam. Meanwhile, the petitioner also made Ext.P3 application before the Tahasildar, Kollam, for demarcating the individual plots allotted to the parties and that application is also pending. 2. According to the petitioner, while matters stood thus, the 6th respondent applied for a building permit and also produced a sketch issued by the Village Officer, the 4th respondent. Accordingly the building permit was obtained and the construction 2 W.P.(C).No.32979 of 2010 is now progressing. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, during the pendency of the civil disputes and also Ext.P3 application, the Village Officer should not have issued the sketch enabling the 6th respondent to obtain the building permit. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Village Officer has no authority competent to issue a sketch of the property. Reference has been made in this connection to the provisions of the Survey and Boundaries Act. Further the counsel contended that the sketch was issued without conducting any measurement or with any notice to the petitioner or anybody else. On this basis, petitioner seeks to get the sketch set aside. 4. However, Counsel for the 6th respondent, invited my attention to Ext.R6(i), a rough sketch of the individual shares held by the parties in the common property. According to him, the 6th respondent had 8 cents of land and he also obtained another 1 cent of property from his father. It is stated that in between the afore said property of the 6th respondent and the 9 cents of 3 W.P.(C).No.32979 of 2010 property belonging to the petitioner, there is a demarcated plot of 4 cents of land belonging to the father of the petitioner. It is therefore stated that so long as the petitioner and the 6th respondent do not share a common boundary, no prejudice can be caused to the petitioner, for the reason that a sketch has been issued to him. It is also the case of the 6th respondent that for the purpose of getting building permit, a sketch of the property had to be produced and therefore he made an application to the Village Officer, who measured the property and issued the sketch. According to the 6th respondent, the sketch was not the one obtained under the provisions of the Survey and Boundaries Act and therefore the petitioner is not justified in relying on the provisions of the Act or the rules and to dispute the competency of the Village Officer to issue the sketch. According to him, the only object of the petitioner is to prevent him from proceeding with the construction of the residential house which has already commenced. 5. As already seen, the civil disputes between the parties 4 W.P.(C).No.32979 of 2010 regarding the boundary of the individual shares held by them are pending consideration of the Civil Court. There is no order passed by the Civil Court preventing the 6th respondent from, proceeding with developmental activities in his plot including the construction of house. If that be so, he is entitled to proceed with such activities. If for the purpose of obtaining a building permit, a sketch was necessary and if he has obtained one from the Village Officer that is not the one obtained under the Survey and Boundaries Act. If so, the petitioner can not contend that the Village Officer was incompetent to issue the sketch also. In any event, having regard to the pendency of the boundary disputes between the parties, anything done by the 6th respondent in the plot which belongs to him, will be subject to out come of the suits that are pending. 6. Therefore, having regard to the pendency of the civil disputes and as none of the interests of the petitioner can be said to be prejudiced by virtue of the sketch issued and as the Village Officer cannot be said to be without authority to issue the sketch, 5 W.P.(C).No.32979 of 2010 I see no reason to interfere with the action of the Village Officer in issuing the sketch of the property claimed by the 6th respondent. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. ami/