Kerala High Court
G.Sasidharakurup vs The State Of Kerala on 3 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA,1942
OP(C).No.1966 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDERI.A.NO.1/2020 IN OS 222/2013 OF MUN-MAGI COURT,
PARAVOOR
-------------
PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS:
1 G.SASIDHARAKURUP,
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O. GOPALAKURUP, RESIDING AT S. L. BHAVAN,
ELLUVILA, KIZHAKKANELA P. O., KIZHAKANELA CHERI,
PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK - 691 574.
2 LALITHA BHAI @ LALITHAMMA
AGED 66 YEARS
W/O. G. SASIDHARAKURUP, RESIDING AT S. L. BHAVAN,
ELLUVILA, KIZHAKKANELA P. O., KIZHAKANELA CHERI,
PARIPPALLY VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK - 691 574.
BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM - 691 013.
3 THE TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM
TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM - 691 013.
4 THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM
TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM - 691 013.
5 THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF RESURVEY
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF RESURVEY,
PATTATHANAM P. O., KOLLAM - 691 008.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
==================
O. P. (C) No.1966 of 2020
==================
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2021
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the plaintiffs in a suit
for declaration of title, demarcation of boundary
and injunction. The plaint allegation is that, the
property belonging to the petitioners have been
wrongfully included as 'puthuval land' based on an
erroneous resurvey conducted by the survey
officials.
2. The petitioners sought for identification
and demarcation of his property on the basis of
original title deeds and old survey records. The
court, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to be
assisted by Taluk Surveyor to conduct the
measurement. Though the petitioner sought for
appointment of a private surveyor in the place of
the Taluk Surveyor, the same was refused as per the
order impugned.
3. The very allegation in the suit is,
erroneous resurvey and wrongful inclusion of the
O. P. (C) No.1966 of 2020
property of the petitioners as 'puthuval land'. The
Resurvey Department and other officers of the State
are the defendants in the suit. Though as pointed
out by the learned Munsiff, the apprehension of the
petitioners-plaintiffs is baseless, keeping in mind
the maxim that 'justice is not only to be done, but
must also appear to be done', I am of the opinion
that it would be proper if a private surveyor could
be appointed for identification of the property.
The court could also consider the feasibility of
appointing a retired surveyor for the purpose. Be
that as it may, it is for the trial court to
consider the same and pass appropriate orders.
Accordingly the order impugned is set aside.
The trial court shall pass fresh orders on the
application. The original petition is disposed of
as above.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. to Judge
OP(C).No.1966 OF 2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OS NO.222/2013 ON THE
FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, PARAVUR.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN
OS 222/2013.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN IA NO.582/2015 IN
OS 222/2013 DATED 04.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT WITH
APPLICATION IA NO.1/2020 IN OS 222/2013.
EXHIBIT P5 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER IN IA NO.1/2020
IN OS 222/2013 DATED 26.02.2020.
--------------
