IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 18751 of 2010(T) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- PUTHIYAVEETIL DEVAKI, KUTTIYERI AMSOM, THALORA DESOM, KUTTIYERI P.O. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KANNUR DISTRICT,KANNUR.670 002. 2. SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, RE SURVEY OFFICE, THALIPARAMBA,KANNUR. 670 141. 3. KANAMADATHIL KUNJIRAMAN, S/O.KUNJAPPA, KUTTIYERI AMSOM,THALORA DESOM, KUTTIYERI P.O. 670141. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU R3 BY ADVS. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN. SRI.G.GIREESH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.18751/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.947/1977 DT. 22.1.1977 ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL PAYYANNUR. P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO. 183/2009 DTD. 3.3.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED ON 14.1.1983 BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KUTTIYERI AMSOM . P4:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 29.4.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER INFORMATION ACT. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 7.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a):- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PURCHASE ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL TALIPARAMBA NO.II IN FAVOUR OF THIS RESPONDENT VIDE CERTIFICATE 11827/77. R3(b):- COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTTIYERI DURING THE PERIOD 2009-2010. R3(c):- COPY OF THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPERTY POSSESS BY THIS RESPONDENT. R3(d):- COPY OF THE AWARD MADE BY SOCIAL JUSTICE FORUM. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 18751 of 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner claims ownership over 1.32 1/2 acres of land in survey No. 67 in Kuttiyeri Village in Kannur district on the strength of Exhibit P1 purchase certificate. According to the petitioner in the course of resurvey, the 2nd respondent surveyed and demarcated the property resulting in reduction in the extent of the land. Petitioner made Exhibit P2 complaint on 1.8.2009. No action was taken on the complaint. 2. Hence Exhibit P4 application was made by the petitioner. Immediately thereafter Exhibit P5 order was issued by the 2nd respondent stated that the 3rd respondent who is in possession of the land in question objected and therefore the application is rejected. It is on receipt of Exhibit P5 this writ petition has been filed, seeking to quash the same and to direct the consideration of Exhibit P2. 3. 3rd respondent had filed a counter affidavit. According to the 3rd respondent resurvey has been conducted with WP(C) No. 18751 of 2010 2 reference to the documents of title and the physical possession of the property. It is stated that the property in his possession is what is claimed by the petitioner and that there is no error of either in extent or the boundary of the petitioner's property which is to be rectified by the 2nd respondent. 4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Exhibit P2 application made by him is liable to be dealt with in terms of Section 10 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 and that Exhibit P5 does not show that the application was dealt with in terms of said provision. 5. Section 10 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 provides that where boundary is disputed, surveyor shall determine the boundary in the manner provided therein. As can be seen from the pleadings the grievance of the petitioner is that as a consequence of resurvey, there was reduction in the extent of her property and that the said property is in the possession of the 3rd respondent. Such a complaint is outside the purview of Section 10 of the Act and if the grievance of the petitioner is to be redressed, it is possible only by a civil suit, which the petitioner will have to file before the appropriate civil court. WP(C) No. 18751 of 2010 3 6. In that view of the matter, I am not satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to seek a direction for the consideration of Exhibit P2 complaint. Writ petition fails and, it is dismissed. sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. rkc //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE