IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2011 / 31ST ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 20002 of 2009(U) --------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- K.SUGATHAN, S/O. DAMODARAN, KALLINKALKUDIYIL HOUSE, EAST KALOOR POST, KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE THODUPUZHA. 2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. 3. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, THODUPUZHA. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI. 6. THE DUPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, PAINAVU, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 7. THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. T.P. SASIDHARAN NAIR, S/O. PADMANABHAN NAIR, THAYYIL HOUSE, KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 9. THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, IDUKKI COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI. 10. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R7, R9 & R10 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 20002 of 2009(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE POSSESSION AND NON-ATTACHMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 5.12.07 ISSUED TO PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 : COPY OF JUDGMNENT DATED 6.2.08 IN WP(C) NO. 1524/08 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE FORGED FORM NO.7 STATEMENT OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICE OF 4TH RESPONDENT FALSELY INDICATING THAT THE TOTAL AREA OF PETITIONER'S 40 CENTS OF LAND IS ONLY 0.1480 HECTRE. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE F.M. SKETCH PREPARED BY 3RD RESPONDENT RELATING TO PETITIONER'S 40 CENTS OF LAND COVERED BY EXT.P1 CERTIFICATE. EXT.P5 : COPY OF PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT DATED 21.10.08 SUBMITTED BEFORE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE F.I.R REGISTERED BY THODUPUZHA POLICE AGAINST 3RD RESPONDENT IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO. 1364/2008. EXT.P7 : COPY OF PETITIONER'S REGISTERED COMPLAINT DATED 21.10.08 FORWARDED TO 7TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 : COPY OF 7TH RESPONDENT'S LETTER DATED 19.11.08 ISSUED TO 6TH RESPONDENT AND FURNISHED TO PETITIONER UPON REQUEST. EXT.P9 : COPY OF PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED TO 25.10.08 FORWARDED TO RESPONDENTS 1, 5, 7, 9 & 10 REQUESTING SUSPEND 3RD RESPONDENT AND TO INITIATE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM. EXT.P10 : COPY OF 7TH RESPONDENT'S LETTER DATED 24.12.08 COMMUNICATED TO 6TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P11 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 6.9.08 OF 2ND RESPONDENT COMMUNICATED TO 4TH RESPONDENT AND ISSUED TO PETITIONER UPON REPORT. EXT.P12 IN I.A. NO. 1530/2010 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 29.1.10 OF THE MANAGER OF DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, INDIA SPEED POST CENTRE, KOCHI COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER'S COUNSEL. EXT.P12 IN I.A. NO. 3996/2010 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 22.11.08 OF THE S.I. OF POLICE THODUPUZHA FORWARDED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI AT PYNAVU. (Contd...) WP(C).No. 20002 of 2009(U) EXT.P13 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 3.3.09 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER. EXT.P14 : COPY OF PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED 7.3.09 COMMUNICATED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20002 OF 2009 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2011 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is regarding the resurvey records pertaining to his property situated in Sy.No.355/2 in Block No.9 of Kumaramangalam Village. 2. Petitioner's claim was that the extent of his property was 40 cents. According to the petitioner, since he refused to comply with certain illegal demands made by the 3rd respondent, resurvey records were manipulated by him and the extent of the property was indicated in the resurvey records as 36.5 cents. 3. Considering the nature of the controversy involved, this court initially passed order dated 1/10/2010, para 6 of which reads as under:- “In that view of the matter, I direct the 9th respondent, the District Survey Superintendent, Idukki, to conduct a survey of the properties of the petitioner with notice to the petitioner and the 8th respondent, with whom the petitioner has dispute over the properties, and submit a report before this Court along with a survey plan. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks of production of a copy of this order”. 4. Subsequently, on the request of the petitioner, order WPC No. 20002/2009 :2 : dated 11/11/2007 was passed directing that survey as ordered in the order dated 1/10/2010 shall be conducted by the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent accordingly conducted survey and submitted his report dated 7/3/2011, para 3 and 4 of which reads as under:- “3. This respondent located the survey stone, which is 13.9 M away north from the 'B' junction. The survey proceedings are completed by referring the resurvey sketch and sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor and documents of the petitioner, and demarcated the boundaries of 40 cents by fixing the sticks. All these matters are convinced to Sri.S.Arunkumar, S/o deceased 8th respondent. 4. In my sketch there is black line indicates southern boundary line of the sketch issued by Taluk Surveyor, blue line indicate the southern 'Kayyala' of the property and red line indicate the extent of 40 cents as per the description of the petitioner's documents. As the request of the respondent's side there is a well has been situated adjacent to the red line also has been indicated. This respondent could keep the extent of the property as per the document only on the southern side because western, northern and eastern properties are belonged to third parties”. Along with the report, he has also produced a sketch of the property involved. 5. Suffice it to say that as per the report of the 6th respondent, the extent of the property has been found to be 40 WPC No. 20002/2009 :3 : cents. 6. In the light of the report thus obtained, all that is required to be done to redress the grievance of the petitioner is that the 9th respondent, shall pass appropriate orders rectifying the errors in the resurvey records pertaining to the property of the petitioner. This the 9th respondent shall do, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 7. It should also be stated that the petitioner has complaint against the 3rd respondent and the allegation was that for the reason that the petitioner did not accede to the illegal demands, survey records pertaining to the petitioner's property were manipulated resulting in reduction in extent of his property. 8. From the report now submitted by the 6th respondent pursuant to the directions of this Court, it would prima facie appear that there is substance in what the petitioner alleges. If what the petitioner alleges is factually right, this is a case where a citizen has been unnecessarily harassed and the matter needs to be looked into. Petitioner has made repeated complaints to various authorities and one of the complaint is Ext.P9, which was WPC No. 20002/2009 :4 : made to the 10th respondent. 9. Taking note of this, I direct that the 10th respondent will examine the complaint of the petitioner in the light of the observations in this judgment and appropriate action in the matter will be taken by him. 10. In order to enable the 10th respondent to do so, I direct that the petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of Ext.P9 before the 10th respondent. The 10th respondent shall file a report of the action taken in this matter within three months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp