Baby Chacko vs Tahsildar, Alathur Taluk
2021 Latest Caselaw 17641 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 5TH BHADRA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 5061 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:

    1       BABY CHACKO
            AGED 65 YEARS
            S/O. LATE CHACKO, POOVATHANAM HOUSE, MARYGIRI,
            PANNIYANKARA P.O., VADAKKENCHERRY - VIA, PALAKKAD
            DISTRICT, PIN-678683.

    2       THOMAS CHACKO,
            AGED 63 YEARS
            S/O. LATE CHACKO, POOVATHANAM HOUSE, MARYGIRI,
            PANNIYANKARA P.O., VADAKKENCHERRY - VIA, PALAKKAD
            DISTRICT, PIN-678683.

    3       SIBI CHACKO,
            AGED 60 YEARS
            S/O. LATE CHACKO, POOVATHANAM HOUSE, MARYGIRI,
            PANNIYANKARA P.O., VADAKKENCHERRY - VIA, PALAKKAD
            DISTRICT, PIN-678683.

    4       ROY CHACKO,
            AGED 55 YEARS
            S/O. LATE CHACKO, POOVATHANAM HOUSE, MARYGIRI,
            PANNIYANKARA P.O., VADAKKENCHERRY - VIA, PALAKKAD
            DISTRICT, PIN-678683.

    5       JOSEPH CHACKO,
            AGED 50 YEARS
            S/O. LATE CHACKO, POOVATHANAM HOUSE, MARYGIRI,
            PANNIYANKARA P.O., VADAKKENCHERRY - VIA, PALAKKAD
            DISTRICT, PIN-678683.

    6       THRESSIAMMA CHACKO,
            AGED 50 YEARS
            D/O. LATE CHACKO, POOVATHANAM HOUSE, MARYGIRI,
            PANNIYANKARA P.O., VADAKKENCHERRY - VIA, PALAKKAD
            DISTRICT, PIN-678683.

           BY ADVS.
           BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA
           SRI.M.G.SREEJITH
           SMT.K.S.ARCHANA
 WP(C) NO. 5061 OF 2021
                              2




RESPONDENTS:

    1     TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR TALUK
          TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR, ALATHUR P.O., PALAKKAD
          DISTRICT, PIN-678541.

    2     TALUK SURVEYOR,
          ALATHUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR, ALATHUR
          P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678541.

    3     VILLAGE OFFICER,
          KANNAMBRA I VILLAGE, KANNAMBRA P.O.,
          VADAKKENCHERRY - VIA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-
          678686.

    4     PAPPACHAN,
          VALOOKKARAN HOUSE, THANNIPUZHA, OKKAL P.O., KALADY
          - VIA, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683550.

    5     MARY,
          W/O. PAPPACHAN, VALOOKKARAN HOUSE, THANNIPUZHA,
          OKKAL P.O., KALADY - VIA, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM
          DISTRICT, PIN-683550.

    6     JOBY,
          S/O. PAPPACHAN, VALOOKKARAN HOUSE, THANNIPUZHA,
          OKKAL P.O., KALADY - VIA, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM
          DISTRICT, PIN-683550.

    7     SHIBU,
          S/O.PAPPACHAN, VALOOKKARAN HOUSE, THANNIPUZHA,
          OKKAL P.O., KALADY - VIA, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM
          DISTRICT, PIN-683550.

    8     ANIL T.K.,
          S/O.KUNJIPPALAN, THATTIL HOUSE, KERALA
          AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY P.O., VELLANIKKARA,
          MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680654.

    9     SHEEBA SANOJ,
          W/O. SANOJ, KURUTHUKULANGARAKOOLA, ARANATTUKARA
          P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680618.
 WP(C) NO. 5061 OF 2021
                                  3



     10      SHEENA BAIJU,
             D/O. KUNJIPPALAN, THATTIL HOUSE, KALLETTUMKARA,
             THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680683.

          BY ADVS.
          GOVERNMENT PLEADER
          SRI.MARTIN CHACKO
          SRI.P.S.BASTIN
          SHRI.TERRY V.JAMES
          SRI.MATHEWS K.UTHUPPACHAN
          SMT.LILIN LAL



OTHER PRESENT:

          Smt.Amminikutty Sr.GP




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   27.08.2021,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 5061 OF 2021
                                  4



                             JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court

seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to

survey, demarcate and re-fix the boundaries of the

properties owned by them and by respondents 4 to 10

in Kannambra I Village.

2. The petitioners say that even though they

have made Ext.P4 application for this purpose, under

Rule 27 of the Kerala Survey & Boundaries Rules,

1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for

short) before the 1st respondent, no action has been

taken by the said Authority until now. They,

therefore, prays that the said respondent be

directed to complete proceedings on Ext.P4, after

following due procedure, within a time frame to be

fixed by this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for respondents

4 to 10 - Shri.Terry V.James, submitted that since

the petitioners' allegation is that his clients have WP(C) NO. 5061 OF 2021

illegally occupied properties belonging to them,

their proper remedy was to have approached the

competent Civil Court, rather than have moved the 1 st

respondent with Ext.P4. He submitted that, however,

if this Court is inclined to allow the proceedings

pursuant to Ext.P4, then all contentions of his

clients may be left open to be pursued by them

before the said Authority, as also before the Civil

Court, if becomes so warranted in future.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader,

Smt.K.Amminikutty, began her submissions by saying

that the 1st respondent is not the competent

Authority to decide Ext.P4, but that it is the

competent Tahsildar (Land Records). She submitted

that, therefore, if this Court is so inclined, the

competent Tahsildar (Land Records) will take up

Ext.P4 and dispose of the same, after hearing both

sides.

5. When I consider the afore submissions, it is WP(C) NO. 5061 OF 2021

without doubt that since Ext.P4 is stated to be

pending before the competent Authority, the same

will require to be considered and disposed of

appropriately, before this Court can intervene in

the process. Even though the respondents 4 to 10

have a case that the petitioners ought to have moved

the competent Civil Court, I am of the prima facie

view that such an eventuality will happen only after

the process pursuant to Ext.P4 is completed.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and

direct the competent Tahsildar (Land Records), to

take up Ext.P4 application of the petitioners and

dispose it of, after hearing them as also

respondents 4 to 10 and after adverting all their

contentions; thus culminating in an appropriate

order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but

not later than three months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, all rival contentions of the WP(C) NO. 5061 OF 2021

parties are left open, including that of respondents

4 to 10 that the petitioners ought to have moved the

Civil Court, so as to enable them to pursue it

appropriately in future, if so required.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/31.8 WP(C) NO. 5061 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5061/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 17.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 17.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.6.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 20.6.2019 RETURNED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT, ON RECEIPT OF EXT.P3.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.2.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FORM 8.

EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING TAPAL NO.2021/1814/9/100 DATED 15.2.2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.2.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.