IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 22655 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUJATHAN, KOTTAPURATHU MALAYIL, KOTTARAKAVU, MAVELIKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.V.SUNIL KUMAR (PANACHAMOODU) SRI.H.JAWHAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, ALAPPUZHA. 4. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS (RE SURVEY), ALAPPUZHA. 5. TAHSILDAR, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, MAVELIKKARA. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. T.K. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISISON ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.22655 OF 2010(F) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner states that in 1991, by virtue of two documents he purchased 2.369 cents(96 square meters) in Sy.No.111/188-B and 1 cent in Sy. NO.99/7 of Mavelikkara Village. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is confined to the property situated in Sy. No.111/18-B. 2. Petitioner submits that, when resurvey was conducted as against 96 square meters claimed by him, the extent of property was recorded as 85 square meters and R.S.No.64/5 was also assigned. Petitioner states that since he was abroad he could not apply for mutation of the property and that in 2008 he made an application for mutation. It is stated that thereupon only 85 square meters of land was mutated in his name. 3. In view of the reduction in the extent he made Ext.P1 application to the 4th respondent for measuring the property in terms of the provisions contained in the Resurvey and Boundary Rules, 1964. Accordingly, the property was measured and it would appear that the 4th respondent got a report stating that the WPC.No.22655 /2010 :2 : extent of the property was found to be 87 square meters. Thereupon finding that the discrepancy was within the permissible limits as provided in Rule 53 of the Rules, the application made by the petitioner for rectification was rejected by Ext.P2. 4. Petitioner pursued the matter by filing Ext.P3 and P5 representations before respondents 3 and 2 respectively. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P6 informing the petitioner that he can apply to get the extent redetermined in terms of the Rule 55 of the Rules. It is aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P6 that the writ petition is filed. 5. The case of he petitioner is that, the actual extent of the property was 96 square meters and that if an appropriate measurement is carried out, the extent will be found to be 96 square meters. It is stated that therefore, the view taken by the authorities in Exts.P2 and P6 was erroneous. 6. However, as can be seen from Ext.P6, on the application of the petitioner, when the property in R.S. No.64/5 was measured, the extent of the property was found to be 87 square meters as against 85 recorded in the resurvey conducted. It has WPC.No.22655 /2010 :3 : been rightly said to be within the permissible limits as provided in Rule 53. In such a case, the remedy available to the petitioner is to make an application under Rule 55 to get the actual measurement on the ground determined and to have the discrepancy reconciled. This is precisely what is stated in Ext.P6. 7. Therefore, it will be open to the petitioner to make an application to the 5th respondent under Rule 55 as mentioned in Ext.P6, in which event the 5th respondent will survey the property and redetermine the extent of the property with reference to the actual measurements on the ground. With that liberty the writ petition is disposed of. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/