P.R. Sidharthan vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 15626 Ker

WP(C) NO. 14902 OF 2021            1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
     TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 14902 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
    1     P.R. SIDHARTHAN,
          AGED 82 YEARS,S/O. RAMAN, SINDHUBHAVAN,
          CHERUKARA P.O., KAVALAM, ALAPPUZHA 688 506.

     2       V.K. PONNAPPAN, AGED 67 YEARS,
             S/O. KOCHU KESHAVAN, MAHESH BHAVANAM, EARA P.O.
             NEELAMPEROOR, ALAPPUZHA 686 534.

     3       A.K. SUKUMARAN, AGED 78 YEARS, S/O. KANDAN,,
             ARUVANKERIKALAM, CHERUKARA P.O., KAVALAM,
             ALAPPUZHA 688 506.

             BY ADVS.
             BLOSSOM MATHEW
             B.SAJEEV KUMAR
             THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN


RESPONDENT/S:
    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
          GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

     2       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
             CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA 688 001.

     3       THE TAHSILDAR,
             KUTTANADU, TALUK OFFICE BUILDING, MANCOMPU,
             ALAPPUZHA 688 502.

     4       THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
             KAVALAM VILLAGE, KAVALAM, ALAPPUZHA 688 506.


              SMT. A.C. VIDHYA, GP
      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   27.07.2021,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 14902 OF 2021                2

                                 JUDGMENT

Being aggrieved by the refusal of the 3rd respondent to consider

Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioners in compliance to

Ext.P1 order issued by the Puncha Special Officer, Alappuzha, the

petitioners have approached this Court.

2. According to the petitioners, the 1st petitioner herein is

the owner of 70.82 Ares of paddy land in Re-Sy.No.370/1, Block No.16

of Kavalam Village, Kuttanad Taluk. The 2nd petitioner is the owner of

84.5 Ares of paddy land in Re-Sy.Nos.370/2 and 370/3 in Block No.16

of Kavalam Village, Kuttanad Taluk and the 3rd petitioner is the owner

of 54.63 Ares of paddy land in Re-Sy.No.371/2, Block No.16 of

Kavalam Village, Kuttanad Taluk. It is contended that the

aforementioned properties are lying contiguously and the petitioners

had purchased the said properties together with the right to use the

existing "Vachaal Thodu" which lies on the southern side of the

properties. It is from the said thodu that the petitioners obtain water

for cultivation.

3. The petitioners contend that a certain Sri. P.V. Devassia

owns the neighbouring paddy land and the thodu lies on the western

side of his property. There was a dispute between the petitioners as

well as the aforesaid Sri. Devassia which finally reached the Puncha

Special Officer, Alappuzha. After hearing both sides, Ext.P1 order was

passed on 19.2.2018 wherein certain directions were issued to dissolve

the dispute. It was ordered that to resolve the boundary dispute, the

parties may approach the Tahsildar, Kuttanadu.

4. The petitioners state that in terms of Ext.P1 order, the

petitioners had approached the 3rd respondent on numerous

occasions. However, no action was taken. In the said circumstances,

they submitted Ext.P2 representation on 3.4.2021 before the 3rd

respondent as is evident from Ext.P3. They contend that no action is

being taken by the 3rd respondent. It is in the afore circumstances

that the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to

the respondents to consider Ext.P2 application and take a decision

within a time frame.

5. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted

that if the requirement of the petitioner is to carry out the demarcation

and survey of their registered land, it is for the petitioners to approach

the Tahsildar (LR) Kuttanad and file appropriate application invoking

the provisions of the Survey and Boundaries Act and the Rules framed

thereunder. It is submitted that if they only want the 3rd respondent to

consider Ext.P2, there cannot be any impediment.

6. Smt. Blossom Mathew, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied if

necessary directions are issued to the 3rd respondent and to take a

decision on Ext.P2.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the

submissions made across the Bar, this writ petition is disposed of

directing the 3rd respondent to take up Ext.P2 representation and pass

appropriate orders with notice to the petitioners, Sri.P.V. Devassia and

other affected parties, if any, and take a decision expeditiously, in any

event, within a period of three months from the date of production of a

copy of this judgment.

The petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition along

with this judgment before the 3rd respondent to ensure compliance.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE sru

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14902/2021

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE PUNCHA SPECIAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03.04.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DATED 03.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL