IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 OP.No. 87 of 1996(I) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- GIRINDRANATHAN, S/O. CHANDRAN, PANAYANCHIRA, VILAYANUR AMSOM, THENKURISSI II VILLAGE, ALATHUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.MOHANDAS SRI.T.M.SUNIL SMT.S.CHITHRA SMT.M.PREETHA SRI.A.R.GENGADAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALGHAT. 2. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PALGHAT. 3. TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. N.SUDHADEVI THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP. NO.87/1996 ORDER ON CMP. NO.87/1997 IN OP. NO.87/1996 DISMISSED 16.01.2008 SD/- K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.1314/1980. EXT.P2:- SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 22.4.95. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 26.4.95. EXT.P4:- COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 19.5.95. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE STAY GRANTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 13.7.95. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 29.7.95. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF STAY GRANTED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY the IST RESPONDENT DT. 7.12.95. EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF RE-SURVEY RECORDS DT. 6.12.95. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss K. M. JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------- O.P NO. 87 OF 1996 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 16th January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P2, P3, P6 and P9. He seeks a direction to the first respondent to dispose of Ext.P10. A declaration also is sought to the effect that the proceedings dated 24.11.1990 of the Sub Collector based on which Exts.P3, P6 and P9 orders are passed, is null and void. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: Pursuant to a Partition Deed the ancestral property was held by the petitioners' father Chandran. All the ancestral properties held by the petitioner's father Chandran were partitioned among the petitioner, his father Chandran and the petitioner's three brothers, namely, Sethumadhavan, Ravindranathan and Sathish. In the said partition, A Schedule properties were set apart to petitioner's father Chandran, B Schedule to petitioner's brother Sethumadhavan, C Schedule to Ravindranathan, D Schedule to the petitioner and E Schedule to OP NO.87/96 I 2 Sathish. F Schedule consisting of some properties was kept as common property. Ext.P1 is the partition deed. The F Schedule property is being managed by petitioner's father and brother and the petitioner is not in actual possession of F Schedule property. Petitioner received a notice under the Land Conservancy Act to the effect that he has unauthorisedly encroached upon puramboke land and issued a show cause notice as to why action should not be taken. Ext.P2 is the notice. Ext.P3 is the order of the third respondent. Petitioner preferred Ext.P4 appeal. Thereafter, Ext.P6 order was issued by the second respondent. Petitioner preferred Ext.P7 Revision Petition before the first respondent, District Collector, who by Ext.P9 Order, rejected the Revision Petition. Ext.P10 is filed by the petitioner for correcting mistakes in the Resurvey records. A Counter Affidavit is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was OP NO.87/96 I 3 not served with notice will not hold good and I am not impressed by the complaint raised by the counsel for petitioner. Ext.P2 is the notice issued to the petitioner. It is also pointed out that in fact the petitioner did not even care to appear. However, the case of the respondents that there was encroachment, is built around the version that the land is puramboke on the basis of the relinquishment of the land made by Shri P.C. Sivanarayanan which was accepted in the year 1990. Petitioner has set up a definite case before the Appellate Authority that Shri P.C. Sivanarayanan did not have any right over the property. It is also submitted by the petitioner that Ext.P10 was acted upon and thereupon a correction was made in the Village Records. On a perusal of Ext.P9 Order, I find that the contention that Shri P.C. Sivanarayanan had no land to surrender to the Government, is not considered by the Authority. In such circumstances, I feel that the matter requires to be reconsidered. Accordingly, Ext.P9 is quashed and there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider the question which OP NO.87/96 I 4 the petitioner has raised before it that Shri P.C. Sivanarayanan did not have any right in the land in the Survey Numbers in dispute which he could surrender to the Government. It is also open to the petitioner to bring any subsequent development in the form of correction of the Resurvey Records to the notice of the first respondent. A decision after hearing the petitioner will be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. K. M. JOSEPH, J. O.P NO. 87 OF 1996 I JUDGMENT 16th January, 2008.