Kerala High Court
Shajahan vs The Secretary To Government on 15 July, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:52635
1
WA No.772 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 772 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.03.2020 IN WP(C)
NO.32493 OF 2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SHAJAHAN, AGED 76 YEARS
S/O.SHOUKATH ALI, KOTTOOR HOUSE,
VADKKUMTHALA , KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT A-12, SHANTHINAGAR
ANNEX, RAJAGIRI PO, NJALAKAM KARA, THRIKKAKARA
NORTH ,, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, 683104
BY ADVS.
DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
SRI.SABU PULLAN
SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001
2 THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
2025:KER:52635
2
WA No.772 of 2020
KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM -691 001
3 THE DIRECTOR
SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, OFFICE OF THE
DIRECTOR, SURVEY BHAVAN, VAZHUTHACAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695014
4 THE JOINT DIRECTOR
SOUTHERN RANGE, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS,
OFFICER OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001
5 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691 013
6 NOORJAHAN.K.S.W/O. AMANULLA, MAHIMA,,
VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM -691 010
7 K.S.SHAMSHARJIHAN,
W/O. SHAJAHAN, SHA MAHAL, ARA-20, MUNDAKKAL
P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 010
8 HASHIM, S/O. SHOUKATH ALI, KOTTOOR HOUSE, C-
33/1, VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM -691 010
BY ADVS.
SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
SRI.MOHAMMED SADIQUE.T.A
SHRI.K.M.MOHAMMED YUSUFF (M-1323)
SRI.K.P.MAJEED
SHRI.SHANKAR V.
SR GP B VINITHA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:52635
3
WA No.772 of 2020
JUDGMENT
Dr.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
This Writ appeal impugns the judgment dated 04.03.2020 of a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.32493 of 2018.
2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for disposal of this writ appeal are as follows:
The appellant before us was the petitioner in the writ petition aforementioned. He is an Engineer by profession and was working abroad and retired from service in August 2017. Respondents 6, 7 and 8 are his siblings. The father and mother of the appellant were owners in possession of 2 Acres 36 Cents of land in Sy Nos.8717 and 8718 of Vadakkumthala Village, Karunagappally Taluk in Kollam District. Under a partition deed No.1850/79 dated 11.06.1979 of the SRO, Karunagappally, the appellant and the 8 th respondent - brother received 68 Cents of land each from out of the property that was in the joint ownership of his father and mother. His two sisters received 60 Cents and 40 Cents respectively from the said property. It is not in dispute before us that immediately after the partition of the property, and the allotment of their respective shares in the land to the appellant and his siblings, there was no demarcation of the property, that was 2025:KER:52635 4 WA No.772 of 2020 allotted to each of them under the partition deed and no mutation carried out in their respective names.
3. In 1988, the appellant purchased a further extent of 20 Cents of land from the 7 th respondent - sister. Even then, the appellant did not choose to mutate the land purchased from his sister or get the total properties held by him demarcated. While so, in a Survey Adalat that was held in 2000, the other siblings caused a survey and demarcation to be conducted of their properties covered by the partition deed and got their respective shares demarcated and mutated in their names. The appellant states that he was completely in the dark of the said developments.
4. The appellant states that, sometime in 2015, he obtained information regarding the mutation carried out by his siblings in 2000 pursuant to the Survey Adalat. Thereupon, he found that there was a shortage, to an extent of almost 19 cents, in the extent of land that stood in his name. While, according to him, he ought to have had 88 cents in his possession, including the 20 cents that he purchased from the 7th respondent in 1988, on actual measurement he was found to be in possession of only 69 cents. He, therefore, approached the 3 rd respondent - Director of Survey and Land Records with a complaint, pointing out the alleged irregularities that had apparently been 2025:KER:52635 5 WA No.772 of 2020 occasioned in the Survey Adalat conducted in 2000. The Director called for a report in respect of the complaint, and by Ext.P4 report the Joint Director opined that there had been some irregularities in the Survey Adalat of 2000 which were required to be corrected to set the records straight. Thereafter the report appears to have been forwarded to the Office of the 3 rd respondent - Director for further action. We note in this connection that, in the meanwhile, by Ext.P5 communication, a Deputy Director appears to have opined that steps should be taken for cancelling the Survey Adalat findings of 2000. It is unfathomable as to how a Deputy Director could have issued such a direction when the Director himself was in seisin of the matter and the report of the Joint Director was furnished before the Director.
5. Since there was no action forthcoming from the respondents, the appellant approached this Court through writ petition No.9035 of 2018 seeking an implementation of the said communication issued by the Deputy Director. We are given to understand that by a judgment dated 16.03.2018 a direction was issued to the Tahsildar (LR), who was delegated the powers of the Director by then, to take a decision in the matter after hearing the affected persons. In the proceedings that followed, Ext.P10 order was passed by the Tahsildar (LR), who verified the documents, land and statements of the parties to arrive at the following conclusions:
2025:KER:52635 6 WA No.772 of 2020
1. All the above mentioned parties are possessing their respective properties with demarcated boundaries.
2. It is convinced that 16 years before the sub division sketch was prepared accurately by demarcating the boundaries. (The sub division sketch cannot be prepared without examining the property)
3. With regard to the Adalath proceedings notices was send to all the concerned parties on 21.11.2001.
4. A condition is also mentioned in the deed that if there is any difference in the extent mentioned in the partition deed the same will be borne by them.
5. It is seen that transfer has been effected after the sub divisions from the adalath. It is also seen that the said transfers done are also very old.
6. On examining the statements of the other parties there is road on all the three sides of the property of the complainant. Moreover, the said property is also a prime property comparing to the property of others.
7. Further, no complaints were submitted for 15 years against the adalath proceedings conducted in the year 2000-2001 with regard to the partition which had taken place in the year 1979.
8. Moreover, before effecting the sub division the complainant had given his property for expansion of the road and hence there occurred deficiency in his extent.
9. As said property is transferred to various persons, the action of cancelling the mutation effected as per the adalath in the year 2000-2001 will affect many families adversely."
6. It is the aforesaid order of the Tahisldar, that was impugned by the appellant in the writ petition inter alia on the contention that the findings in the impugned order of the Tahsildar (LR) was contrary to the suggestions in Ext.P5 communication issued by the Deputy Director. According to the appellant, such reversal of the decision taken earlier was not legally permissible.
2025:KER:52635 7 WA No.772 of 2020
7. The learned Single Judge, who considered the writ petition, took note of the submissions of the learned Government Pleader as also that of the counsel for the party respondents, that there had been several transactions in relation to the same property after the execution of the partition deed in 1979. The learned Judge, therefore, found that a measurement and demarcation to ascertain whether there was any defect in the demarcation effected consequent to the Survey Adalat in 2000 would not be possible without hearing the parties who had obtained rights in respect of the property subsequent thereto. The learned Judge was of the view that it was for the appellant to institute a civil suit for identification and demarcation of his property after impleading all necessary parties.
8. In the appeal before us, it is the submission of Sri.P. Mohandas, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the learned Single Judge ought not to have relegated the appellant to a civil court since the order impugned in the writ petition was clearly against the earlier directions issued by the Deputy Director, which mandated that the findings of the 2000 Survey Adalat be nullified. Per contra, it is the submission of Sri.V. Premchand and Sri.K.M.Mohammed Yousuf, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents as also Smt.B.Vinitha, the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State, that the findings of the 2025:KER:52635 8 WA No.772 of 2020 learned Single Judge do not warrant any interference by this Court in this intra-court appeal.
9. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the party respondents and the Government Pleader that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. We say so because, we find that as a matter of fact, the appellant himself had not bothered to effect a mutation of the properties received by him in the partition of 1979. If he had caused a demarcation of the property allotted to him under the partition deed and mutated the same in his name, there would not have been any problem of the kind faced by him now. We also note with some surprise that even in 1988, when the appellant purchased a further extent of 20 cents of land from his sister, the 7th respondent herein, he did not bother to cause a fresh demarcation of the extent of property owned by him and get the same mutated in his name. In the backdrop of the inaction of the appellant, he cannot be heard to contend that the findings in a Survey Adalat that was conducted 15 years ago were wrong, and that as a consequence of the demarcation effected pursuant to the Adalat, he had lost significant extents of land that were in his possession. It is also significant, as rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge, that there have been many transactions in relation to the properties that were 2025:KER:52635 9 WA No.772 of 2020 partitioned in 1979, in the years between 1979 and 2015. Any attempt to reopen the findings of the 2000 Survey Adalat would automatically affect the interests of subsequent purchasers of portions of the said properties who are not before us in these proceedings. Under the circumstances, the finding of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, that the appellant has to initiate proceedings before a civil court of competent jurisdiction to get his property demarcated, after arraying all the subsequent purchasers of portions of the property covered by the partition deed as necessary parties, is the most practical one.
We, therefore, dismiss this writ appeal as devoid of merit.
sd/-
Dr.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sd/-
P.M. MANOJ JUDGE das