IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2008 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 14705 of 2000(A) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- 1. SHEMI, D/O. SHEREEFA BEEVI, KOCHUPALAMOOTTIL, THEKKUMBHAGAM, KOTTAPPURAM, QUILON. 2. SUJA, D/O. SHEREEFA BEEVI, KOCHUPALAMOOTTIL, THEKKUMBHAGAM, KOTTAPPURAM, QUILON. 3. BEENA, D/O. SHEREEFA BEEVI, KOCHUPALAMOOTTIL, THEKKUMBHAGAM, KOTTAPPURAM, QUILON. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER, ADV. SMT.JIJIMOL J.VADAKKEN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY & BOUNDARIES, DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY AND BOUNDARIES, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEYOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDANT OF RE-SURVEY, P.L.R. KOTTARAKKARA. 5. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (RE-SURVEY), P.L.R. POOYAPPALLY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N. SUDHA DEVI. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/03/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 23775/2000 IN O.P. NO. 14705/2000-A DISMISSED 14/03/2008. SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED DOCUMENT NO. 571/1965 DTD. 16/02/1965. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX BY SHEREEA BEEVI DTD. 03/05/94. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX BY SHEREEFA BEEVI DTD. 26/07/94. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX IN SY. NO. 733/7A DTD. 22/11/90. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY SHEREEFA BEEVI BEFORE THE R.1 DTD. 18/07/1989. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY SHEREEFA BEEVI BEFORE THE R.2. DTD. 03/12/1990. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY SHEREEFA BEEVI BEFORE THE R.1. DTD. 14/10/1991. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY SHEREEFA BEEVI BEFORE THE R.2. DTD. 01/01/1994. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REGD. NOTICE SENT BY THE PETITIONER'S LAWYER TO THE R.1. DTD. 24/03/2000. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT.P.9 NOTICE BY THE R.2. DTD. 29/03/2000. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.NO.14705 of 2000-A - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The complaint raised by the petitioners is regarding the non rectification of certain mistakes stated to have been committed while conducting the re-survey operations in Puyyappally village, Kottarakkara Taluk. 2. As far as the petitioners are concerned, they are owners of an extent of 1 acre 85 cents of land comprised in Survy Nos. 714/6, 714/7, 714/4, 714/5, 714/12, 714/11, 714/13, 733/6A, 733/6B, 733/6C, 733/5B, 731/18B and 714/14 as described in para 1 of the original petition. They are also in possession of another 5 acres 80 cents of land in various survey Nos. the description of which have been given in the said paragraph. Their mother was the original owner who expired on 20.2.1998. The petitioners are holding the properties on equal shares. They have also produced Ext.P1 sale deed executed in favour of their mother and Exts.P2 and P3, true copies of the basic tax receipts evidencing payment of land tax by Smt. Shereefa Beevi, in respect of those properties. The late mother of the petitioner filed petitions before respondents 1 and 2 by way of Exts.P5 to P8, seeking to OP 14705/2000 -2- rectify various mistakes which have happened during the resurvey due to wrong fixation of boundaries, etc. In para 5 of the original petition, the petitioners admit that the Survey Director had sent a reply dated 1.10.1991 to the deceased mother, but no follow up action was taken thereafter. They are in receipt of another reply dated 1.7.1993 issued by the Tahsildar also. But it is stated that the Tahsildar also did not redress their grievance concerned. The said letter of the Tahsildar is followed by another communication dated 2.9.1994 from the Special Tahsildar, to the mother of the petitioners. Since no further action was being taken in the matter, they have issued a lawyer notice, Ext.P9. There was some response thereafter and by Ext.P10 notice, the Deputy Director (Survey) who is the second respondent herein, directed them to appear for a hearing on 12.4.2000 with evidence, etc. It is pointed out that no further orders have been communicatedthereafter. It is in these circumstances that they have approached this court seeking various reliefs. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent. It is averred that the notification under Section 6(1) of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act was published in the Gazette on 18.6.1974 and thereafter the resurvey work of the village was started. The further notification under Section 9(2) of the Act was published in respect of that OP 14705/2000 -3- village in local dailies on 6.8.1988 and 8.8.1988 calling for objections. It is pointed out that the mother of the petitioners had filed objections complaining that she had actually suffered shortage of the land in resurvey which were available as per the documents of title and the possession of the properties. She had alleged that the said defects were contributed by the wrong fixation of boundaries of neighbouring properties and the property owned by the kudikidappukari, Smt. Kunju Kunju Thankamma and also the property of one Pullan Pullan. It is stated that the Superintendent of Survey and Land Records, Resurvey, Anchal was the authority to take decision in the complaint and he enquired into the complaints in detail as per the rules. It was found that the kudikidappu land of Smt. Kunju Kunju Thankamma was without any boundary in the field separating it from other properties. That is why the name of kudikidappukari was noted along with the name of Smt. Shereefa Beevi as land owners. The Superintendent found that the resurvey of the petitioners' properties was done as per possession and the well defined boundaries seen on the ground. Therefore, he decided not to make any change in the prepared resurvey records and the copies of the decision were issued to the petitioners also. Thereafter, the deceased mother was sending repeated representations. 4. The final notification under Section 13 of the Act was issued on OP 14705/2000 -4- 13.2.1990. Thereafter, the appeals filed by Smt. Shereefa Beevi were forwarded to the Special Tahsildar for action. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the Special Tahsildar rejected the petitions as he had no jurisdiction and thereafter the petitioners are now continuing with the process of sending petitions after petitions. 5. The details show that the disputes are mainly between the adjoining owners, i.e. Smt. Kunju Kunju Thankamma and Shri Pullan Pullan. Both of them are not made parties in this original petition. If at all the petitioners have got a case that the kudikidappukari is in possession of excess land over 10 cents that is allowable for which pattayam was granted in O.A. No.7/76, it is for the petitioners to agitate it before a civil court. Going by the averments in the counter affidavit, the property owned by the kudikidappukari is having clear demarcated boundaries showing her possession. The other land owner Shri Pullan Pullan has right over 50 cents of land in survey No. 733/7 as per document No.1034/69. It is averred in the counter affidavit that the late mother of the petitioners was aware of the occupation, encroachment and enjoyment of the land by Kudikidappukari Smt. Thankamma and Shri Pullan Pullan and she had no dispute or complaint about the enjoyment and possession of the kudikidappukari and Shri Pullan Pullan. It is pointed out that she had not taken any steps to evict OP 14705/2000 -5- them. 6. In any view of the matter, the dispute can be examined only after issuing notices to the various land owners and persons in possession including the kudikidappukari Smt. Kunju Kunju Thankamma and other land owner Shri Pullan Pullan. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no orders have been communicated pursuant to Ext.P10. Since the Deputy Director, the second respondent has not passed any final orders based on the enquiry conducted pursuant to Ext.P10, I direct the second respondent to conduct an enquiry with notice to the petitioners, Smt. Kunju Kunju Thankamma as well as the land owner Shri Pullan Pullan. During the enquiry, if it is found that any other person is also to be heard, such person shall also be issued notice. The second respondent can go into the questions raised by the petitioners only as empowered by the provisions of Survey and Boundaries Act or any other relevant enactment in force. The direction to complete the proceedings is not meant to confer any jurisdiction on him to adjudicate such disputes which is not available under the relevant provisions of the said statute and not to reopen any concluded proceedings passed by various authorities. The enquiry shall be completed and a decision has to be taken in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. If the Deputy Director has already taken a decision pursuant to OP 14705/2000 -6- Ext.P10, then it is not necessary to conduct any fresh enquiry and the order passed thereon shall be communicated to the petitioners within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, to enable them to resort to appropriate remedies. The original petition is disposed of as above. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ OP 14705/2000 -7- T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.14705 of 2000-A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 14th March, 2008.