IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 24TH JANUARY 2011 / 4TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 5991 of 2009(T) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- SIVANANDAN, KARIKUL KOTTARAM (DEVIKANAM), PASUMALAI, VANDIPERIYAR.P.O, PEERMEDU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 2. TAHSILDAR, PEERUMEDU. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, PEERUMEDU. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, MANJUMALA. 5. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEYS, IDUKKI. * ADDL. R6 & R7 IMPLEADED 6. RAM BHADUR THAKUR LTD., REPRESENTED BY MANAGER SHARMA, SIDHARTHA BUILDINGS, 2ND MAIN ROAD, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI - 682 003. 7. POABSON ENTERPRISES LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, KUTTOOR, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA. * ADDL. R6 & R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05/06/2009 IN I.A. NO. 6434/2009. R1 TO R5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU R6 BY ADVS. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SRI.K.M.ANEESH R7 BY ADV. SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs WP(C).No. 5991/2009(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/02/2002 IN O.P. 4097/2002 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/04/2001 OF SUB COURT, KATTAPPANA. P3: COPY OF RELEASE DEED DATED 21/12/2001. P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.36991.2003 DATED 04/12/2003 ON THIS HON'BLE COURT. P5: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 25/06/2008. P6: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 25/06/2008. P7: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 25/06/2008. P8: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 25/06/2008. P9: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 25/06/2008. P10: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 27/08/1997. P11: COPY OF THE PATTAYAM. P12: COPY OF THE PATTAYAM. P13: COPY OF THE PATTAYAM. P14: COPY OF THE PATTAYAM. P15: COPY OF THE PATTAYAM. P16: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 02/06/2005. P17: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20/01/2009. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: R7(a):COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S. NO.358/1994 OF THE SUB COURT, KATTAPPANA. R7(b):COPY OF THE SALE CONFIRMATION ORDER ISSUED BY THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION DATED 26/05/2008. R7(c):COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 30/07/1994 IN O.S. NO.394/1991 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, IDUKKI. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P (C) No. 5991 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 24th January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims title and possession over different plots of land covered by Exts. P11 to P15 patta. It is stated that in respect of these lands petitioner has been paying tax and this claim is sought to be substantiated by referring to Exts.P5 to P10 receipts. 2. It is stated that subsequently he had to approach this Court for police protection when his possession was disturbed and that writ petition was disposed of Ext.P4 judgment. It is submitted that during the hearing, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the property has not been identified and that in the absence of such an identification it was not possible to render police protection. Taking note of the submissions, this Court by Ext.P4 judgment directed that the Tahsildar will identify the property and thereafter necessary protection will be afforded. 3. Petitioner submits that accordingly the Tahsildar took efforts for identifying the property and finally realised that the property in the possession of the petitioner was W.P (C) No.5991 of 2009 2 situated in Sy. No. 498 of Manjumala village as against Sy No.183/1 mentioned in the pattas issued to the petitioner. It is stated that thereupon, the Tahsildar made Ext.P16 report. It is stated that in the aforesaid circumstances petitioner made Ext.P17 representation to the District Collector requesting that the survey number mentioned in the patta should be corrected. According to him, the District Collector did not take any action on the representation and hence this writ petition has been filed for appropriate direction. 4. Additional 7th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The case of the additional 7th respondent is that through out the petitioner has been claiming title and possession over properties situated in Sy. No.183/1 of Manjumala village. They refer to the pattas relied on by the petitioner, the judgment in O.S No. 358/1994 rendered by the Sub Court, Kattappana, Ext.R7 (a), the decree in that suit and Ext. R7 (c), the judgment obtained by the additional 6th respondent restraining the petitioner from trespassing into the property in Sy. No.498 of Manjumala village. Relying on Ext. R7 (b), additional 7th respondent also submits that they have purchased the entire property situated in Sy No.498 of Manjumala village and therefore the petitioner has no claim over any portion of the property situated in that survey W.P (C) No.5991 of 2009 3 number. 5. Essentially therefore the issue that arise for consideration which exactly is the property that belongs to the petitioner on which petitioner has possession. This factual issue is covered by various judgments and is hotly contested by the parties. Such disputed question of fact cannot be decided by the District Collector in the guise of correction of a mistake of the survey number mentioned in pattas. Therefore, if the petitioner has a claim that the property in his possession is situated in Sy. No.498 as against the Sy. No.183/1 mentioned in the pattas, the recourse available to the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court and obtain appropriate reliefs from that court. Therefore, in the circumstances, this Court will not be justified in directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.A to Judge W.P (C) No.5991 of 2009 4