IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 AS.No. 207 of 1999(B) --------------------- OS.160/1988 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S):PLAINTIFF -------------- P.P.SYED ALAVI ( AGED 29 YEARS) S/O MOIDEEN HOTEL LIGHT OF KERALA PUTHANTHARA, CHITTUR TALUK BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKITESH SRI.P.R.VENKETESH RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANTS --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD 2. PAUL ANTONY, AGED 35 YEARS, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, FORMERLY SUB COLLECTOR , PALAKKAD AND NOW DISTRICT PLANNING OFFICER WAYANAD 3. C.K.RAGHAVAN, AGED 40 YEARS ( FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN) REVENUE INSPECTOR, NEMMARA 4. S.SARASWATHY, AGED 40 YEARS ( FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN) VILLAGE OFFICER, NEMMARA 5. E.KUMARASWAMY, AGED 45 YEARS (FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN) VILLAGE ASSISTANT NEMMARA ADV. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.L.G.SURESH BABU THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A.S.No.207 OF 1999 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. This appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of damages. 2. The case of the plaintiff who is stated to be the owner of a building bearing No.4/54 situated in R.S.No.161/3 in Nemmara village was that a portion of the building had been demolished by the revenue authorities in an arbitrary and illegal manner and without putting him on any notice. 3. The case of the revenue authorities appeared to be that the building stood on revenue Puramboke land and that the plaintiff had absolutely no title or right over the land on which the building existed. Any how, we do not propose to advert to or deal with the various other contentions raised by either the plaintiff or defendants in the suit. The court below after considering the oral and documentary evidence in the case dismissed the same holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish AS.No.207/99 Page numbers his title over the land in question. In fact the above suit was heard and disposed by the court below along with a connected suit, which was filed by the tenant in occupation of the building. 4. When this appeal came up for consideration, we had directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to appear before us with the records. According to the Revenue Divisional Officer, the building is situated not in R.S.No.161/3, but in R.S.No.161/6 and 161/7 and action was taken by the Revenue Officials in accordance with the provisions contained in the Land Conservancy Act. 5. We have perused the records and heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader. In our view the remedy of the appellant lies in getting the boundary of his property demarcated with reference to the survey records. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he may permitted to withdraw the appeal and the suit with liberty to pursue the matter further and get the boundary demarcated, in accordance with law. He submits that the appellant may be given liberty to approach the revenue and survey authorities in this connection. AS.No.207/99 Page numbers Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason why the permission sought for cannot be granted. We do so. Therefore, we allow the appellant to withdraw the appeal and the suit with liberty to pursue the remedies, if any, available to him before the Revenue Authorities, in accordance with law. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. AS.No.207/99 Page numbers