← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/33459/2014dismissed

Muhammed v. District Survey Superintendent, Kozhikode

2015-08-13Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran7 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/22ND SRAVANA, 1937 ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------ MUHAMMED, AGED 68 YEARS S/O.KUNHABDULLA, PULPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTTIPALAKKAL THAZHEKODE AMSOM DESOM, MUKKOM.P.O.

KOZHIKODE-673 602.

BY ADVS.SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN SMT.A.SIMI SRI.S.K.SAJU RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, KOZHIKODE COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION KOZHIKODE-673 020.

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION KOZHIKODE-673 020.

3. VILLAGE OFFICER THAZHEKODE VILLAGE, MUKKOM.P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 602.

4. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR KOZHIKODE-673 020.

5. TALUK SURVEYOR KOZHIKODE, TALUK OFFICE, KOZHIKODE-673 020.

6. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

CONTD..2..

.. 2 ..

7. SURVEY DIRECTOR SURVEY BHAVAN, VAZHUTHAKAD.P.O.

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14.

8. SURVEY VIGILANCE SURVEY BHAVAN, VAZHUTHAKAD.P.O.

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14.

9. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR SURVEY LAND RECORDS, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673 020.

10. ANOOP, AGED 35 YEARS CIVIL POLICE OFFICER, S/O APPUTTI, PULPARAMBIL HOUSE NAYARKUZHI, R.E.C, KOZHIKODE-673 601.

ADDL. RESPONDENTS*

11. PATTIKAJATHI COLONY VIKASANA SAMITHI AFRA TOWER, MATHU ROAD, MUKKOM P.O KOZHIKODE - 673 602, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, T.T KANNANKUTTY (*IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23.01.2015 IN I.A NO.956/15) R10 BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RADDL.11 BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS R1,R9 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MANOJ P. KUNJACHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

-------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF FORM NO.20 DATED 12.04.2007 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE.

EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT DATED 11.04.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, THE THEN DISTRICT COLLECTOR.

EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.25 DATED 16.09.1992 ENTERED IN BOOK NO.705 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 28.04.2008 FOR ISSUANCE OF POKKUVARAVU FEES.

EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 28.04.2008. EXT.P6TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 15.07.2010. EXT.P7TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 5.05.2011. EXT.P8TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 3.08.2012. EXT.P9TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 12.06.2013. EXT.P10TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.05.2014. EXT.P11TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 15.09.2008.

EXT.P12TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 22.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.

EXT.P13TRUE COPY OF THE SAID C.M.P.NO.3874/2013 DATED 29.10.2013 PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED JFMC II, THALASSERY. EXT.P14TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 08.10.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICER.

EXT.P15TRUE COPY OF THE REQUISITION DATED 26.05.2014 UNDER THE RTI ACT.

EXT.P16TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.06.2014. EXT.P17TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT WHICH CAME IN MADHYAMAM DAILY ON 20.10.2014.

CONTD ..2..

.. 2 ..

EXT.P18TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.10.2014. EXT.P19TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.11.2014. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- EXT.R11(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ROAD BY THE SIDE OF WHICH THE PURAMBOKE IS SITUATED.

EXT.R11(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TALUK SURVEYOR DATED 11.07.2014.

EXT.R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED 30.07.2014 FILED BY PUTTATT KANNAN KUTTY T.T. AND OTHERS.

EXT.R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT REPORT.

EXT.R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT SKETCH.

// TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE.

SB

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

===================== W.P.(C) No.33459 of 2014 - F ====================== Dated this the 13th day of August, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P19 notice, which obviously has been issued on an application made by the petitioner himself at Ext.P18. The petitioner made the 7th respondent a party herein and contended that the said respondent is encroaching upon the property, against which the petitioner had filed Ext.P14 application before the Village Officer as also Ext.P18 before the various authorities seen thereunder.

2. The petitioner in the writ petition claimed that by Ext.P19 notice, the District Survey Superintendent has called the petitioner for a hearing and if the survey is conducted by the District Survey Superintendent, then necessarily, the petitioner would loose the appellate remedy as provided under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act of 1961)

W.P.(C) No.33459 of 2014 - F and the Rules framed thereunder.

3. Ext.P14 is an application filed by the petitioner himself before the Village Officer. Subsequently the petitioner has moved Ext.P18 before the various officers. It is on the basis of Ext.P18, probably on the same being passed over to the District Survey Superintendent for consideration, that a hearing notice was issued. There can be no objection raised by the petitioner that survey cannot be conducted in the area. The objection of the petitioner is only that the District Survey Superintendent may not conduct the survey insofar as taking away the petitioner's appellate remedy. There is no indication of any survey as per Ext.P19.

4. The 7th respondent and the additional 8th respondent represents the interests of the other assignees in the area, who were assigned land along with the petitioner's mother. They too require a survey to be undertaken since the petitioner is said to have obstructed a pathway passing through the colony.

W.P.(C) No.33459 of 2014 - F

5. In any event, the representation has to be considered by the District Survey Superintendent and if at all a survey is necessitated, it would have to be conducted by the Taluk Surveyor as enjoined upon in the Act of 1961. In such circumstance, on such survey being conducted, merely because the survey was directed by the District survey Superintendent on an application of the petitioner, the appellate remedy would not be taken away. The writ petition is a mere ruse to stall the survey, which the petitioner himself demanded. The writ petition would stand dismissed as unnecessary. No costs.

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // true copy // P.A to Judge.