IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 12600 of 2007(Y) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- K.C.VARGHESE, S/O.CHERIA, KANJIRATTUMCHALIL, POOVANCHIRA, PANANCHERRY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE SURVEY DIRECTOR, SURVEY DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PANANCHERY VILLAGE OFFICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. R1 TO 4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ WP(C).No. 12600/2007(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 05/04/1993 SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF TAX P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 10/08/1995 P3: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13/11/1995 FROM THE SURVEY ADALATH. P4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 30/11/2005 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA. P6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18/11/2006 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. P7: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 08/08/2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No. 12600 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Dispute in this writ petition is regarding the requirement of survey of the property in the possession of the petitioner. It is seen that in 1969 Patta No.694 was issued to one Poulose, assigning an extent of 1.63 acres of land in Survey No.45/1/4 of Pananchery Village. In 1981 petitioner's father purchased the said property and was paying tax also. Subsequently, he executed a settlement deed, settling the property in favour of the petitioner. 2. Initially tax was accepted for 1.63 acres, but later tax was accepted only for 1.57 acres on the plea that the remaining land was 'Canal Puramboke'. Petitioner made complaints and finally resurvey was conducted by the 4th respondent which was without notice to the petitioner. Later, he was informed by Ext.P6 that as per resurvey records there was reduction in the extent of the property and that the petitioner should get the resurvey records corrected. Although applications were made by the petitioner, the resurvey authorities have taken the stand that although the assignment and title deed of the predecessor in the W.P.(C).No. 12600 OF 2007 2 interest of the petitioner was for an extent of 1.63 acres of land, what was actually in the possession of the assignee and the petitioner's father was only 1.57 acres of land. In this writ petition the petitioner's contention is that only if a proper survey is conducted with notice to the petitioner, can it be ascertained whether he had only 1.57 acres in his possession or whether the reduction was due to error in the resurvey. 3. Although, it is the contention of the Government Pleader that petitioner has still in his possession, the extent of land he held even prior to the resurvey, I am also of the view that the dispute about the actual extent of the land can be resolved only if a proper survey is conducted with notice to the petitioner. This is for the reason that subsequent to Ext.P3, when the 4th respondent surveyed the property and confirmed that the petitioner had only 1.57 acres of land, that survey was conducted without notice to the petitioner. 4. In that view of the matter I am inclined to think that the 2nd respondent should conduct a fresh survey of the property of the petitioner as sought for by him. This will necessarily be at the cost of the petitioner and if it is found as a result of the W.P.(C).No. 12600 OF 2007 3 resurvey, there was deduction of any extent of land which was actually in his possession, it will also be open to the petitioner to make an application for getting the resurvey records corrected. If any such application is filed, orders will be passed as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. 5. Petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE dmb