IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14624 of 2010(C) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.BEERAN KUNHI, M.A.HOUSE, K.K.PURAM, P.O.MOGRAL, VIA KUMBALA-671 321. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, KUMBALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KASARAGOD. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KASARAGOD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.H.HANIL KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts 2/- -2- WP(C)NO.14624/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED EXECUTED BY A.P.MOHAMMEDIN FAVOUR OF P.S.MUHAMMED IN KANNADA SCRIPT. P1(A) COPY OF THE MALAYALAM TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1. P2 COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED, DATED 8/10/1982 EXECUTED BY A.K.ALI IN FAVOUR OF OF P.S.MUHAMMED WITH RESPECT TO 4 CENTS OF PEROPERTY IN KANNADA SCRIPT. P2(A) COPY OF THE MALAYALAM TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2. P3 COPY OF THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT DATED 12/2/1999 EXECUTED BY P.S.MUHAMMED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. P4 COPY OF THE REVENUE RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX WITH RESPECT TO 54 CENTS, DATED 21/12/2006. P5 COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF THE BUILDING TAX WITH RESPECT TO THE BUILDINGS IN 54 CENTS IN R.S.120/IA OF MOGRAL VILLAGE, DATED 17/1/2009. P6 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT,DATED 22/1/2008. P7 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, DATED 23/1/2008. P8 COPY OF THE CHELAN EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF RS.200/- BEING THE FEE FOR VERIFICATION MEASUREMENT AND CORRECTION IN THE RE-SURVEY RECORDS, DATED 23/1/2008. P9 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 31/7/2009 GIVEN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P10 COPY OF THE LETTER SENT ON BEHALF OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT BY THE SURVEY OFFICER IN CHARGE, KUMBALA UNDER THE FIRST RESPONDENT,DATED 17/8/2009. P11 COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT, DATED 10/10/2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.14624 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated the 15th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is stated as the owner of 54 cents of land originally comprised in survey No.120/1A of Mogral Village, having obtained the title by way of Ext.P3 Conveyance effected in the year 1999, is stated as aggrieved of the correction in the resurvey proceedings pursued by the first respondent, whereby the extent has been wrongly reduced from 54 cents to 39 cents absolutely without any reason and hence challenged in this writ petition. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the extent of property covered by Ext.P3 could be related to the extent of title with reference to Exts.P1 and P2, which are the prior/basic title deeds. The mistake occurred only at the hands of the re-survey authorities after which, the extent of the property was wrongly reduced to '39' cents without any reference to any records. It was in the said circumstances, that the petitioner sought to correct the same by filing applications before the concerned authorities. It is also asserted that the petitioner is having 54 cents on ground, which cannot be disputed from any corners. Pursuant to the application preferred by the petitioner, the survey authorities stated that the 'Eye sketch' was necessary and to procure the same from the Tahsildar. In W.P(C) NO.14624 of 2010(C) -:2:- pursuance of taking further steps, Ext.P9 reply was issued to the petitioner stating that the file was temporarily missing and hence the request could not be acceded to. On approaching the survey authorities again, Ext.P10 letter dated 17/08/2009 was issued pointing out the necessity to have a sketch to redress the grievance of the petitioner. The petitioner has again approached the concerned Tahsildar, who issued Ext.P11 dated 10/10/2009, repeating the very same reply, stating that the file was still missing, which made the petitioner to approach this Court for appropriate reliefs. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit as to the course and events. However, it is contended in paragraph (5) as follows:- “It is submitted that the contention of the petitioner that he is paying land taxes in respect of the entire property is subject to verification. Exhibit P4 produced by the petitioner is the document in which he claims to have paid the land taxes. It is prior to the re-survey. After the implementation of the re-survey petitioner had not paid the taxes for the entire 50 cents as claimed by him. The petitioner submitted an application in the Janakeeya Survey Adalath for re-fixing the boundaries and to correct the extent of property as J.S No.180/09. On receipt of the application the property was examined and understood that he is having documents for 54 cents of property. While conducting re-survey without changing the extent of the property in LA 15/79 and the W.P(C) NO.14624 of 2010(C) -:3:- sketch annexed to the Pattayam, re-fixation has been done. As per the document No.433/99, no boundaries and measurement are seen as per the schedule. It is understood that the petitioner purchased property without fixing the boundaries and demarcated and as such only 0.1271 Hectares are there in Sy.No.167/2. This respondent has not intentionally changed the extent of the property. The purchaser had not verifying the extent while purchase.” 2. In view of the above averment in paragraph (5), the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that necessary corrections are to be effected by the survey authorities as prayed for in the writ petition. However, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader and on going through the materials on record, it appears that there is some discrepancy, with regard to the actual extent, which is not properly explained, but for banking on the probabilities. In such circumstances, this Court finds that this matter requires to be reconsidered by the second respondent with regard to the actual extent by verifying the relevant records and conducting a fresh survey with notice to the petitioner. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to effect the resurvey of the property in question with reference to the relevant records at the cost of the petitioner, procuring the necessary materials/records to be supplied by the W.P(C) NO.14624 of 2010(C) -:4:- second respondent, on demand. After conducting the physical examination, the proceedings shall be finalised, based on the actual extent of land, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The second respondent is directed to trace out the concerned files as referred to in Ext.P9 and P11 and furnish the relevant particulars to the first respondent and if the same is not traceable for any reason, necessary material shall be procured from such authorities so as to enable the first respondent to complete the survey within the specified time. Necessary corrections in the survey records based on the survey sought for, shall be effected accordingly. Writ petition is disposed of . Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE krj