Valsala R.Nair vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 8650 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

    TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.28729 OF 2020(M)


PETITIONER:

               VALSALA R.NAIR
               AGED 55 YEARS
               W/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, PENGATTU VEEDU,
               AYROOR SOUTH P.O., AYROOR MURI,
               AYROOR VILLAGE, RANNI TALUK, PIN-689611.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.P.HARIDAS
               SRI.BIJU HARIHARAN
               SRI.R.B.BALACHANDRAN
               SRI.RENJI GEORGE CHERIAN
               SRI.P.C.SHIJIN
               SRI.RISHIKESH HARIDAS

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
               DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

      2        DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
               PATHANAMTHITTA, COLLECTORATE,
               PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689645.

      3        DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF PATHANAMTHITTA,
               OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
               PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689645.

      4        TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS),
               TALUK OFFICE, RANNI, PIN-689672.

      5        TALUK SURVEYOR,
               TALUK OFFICE, RANNI, PIN-689672.

      6        STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
               KOIPURAM POLICE STATION, KOIPURAM,
               PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689531.

      7        SURENDRAN,
               S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, PENGATTU VEEDU,
 WP(C).No.28729 OF 2020(M)    2

             AYROOR SOUTH P.O., AYROOR MURI, AYROOR VILLAGE,
             RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689611.


             R7 BY ADVS. SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE
                         SRI.P.A.REJIMON
                         SHRI.BIPIN.K.S

             SMT SHEEJA CS, SR GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.28729 OF 2020(M)           3


                              JUDGMENT

The 7th respondent is the brother of the petitioner. The grievance

projected by the petitioner concerns the obstruction caused by the said

respondent when the survey authorities came to measure out the

properties on her application. She seeks police assistance to conclude the

survey without any breach of peace.

2. The petitioner states that she is the absolute owner in title

and possession of property having a total extent of five cents. The said

property was settled in her favour by her father by Exhibit P1 and Exhibit

P2 settlement deeds. According to the petitioner, though she is in actual

physical possession of five cents as per the document, the transfer of

registry has been effected only for 4.87 cents. In the said circumstances,

she submitted Exhibit P4 application before the 4th respondent to conduct

resurvey and to carry out correction in the BTR and another revenue

records so as to enable the petitioner to remit tax for the entire extent.

On her remitting the requisite fees, notice under Form 12 was issued to all

affected parties. The 7th respondent raised obstruction and prevented the

survey authorities from measuring out the property. It is in the said

circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking directions.

3. The 7th respondent has filed a counter-affidavit denying the

contentions raised by the petitioner. He would contend that 2.22 Ares was

settled in his name by his father and he is in possession and remitting tax

for the said extent. He would deny that portions of the property of the

petitioner is in his possession. According to the 7th respondent, the

procedure adopted by the revenue authorities is not proper and it is in the

said circumstances that he raised objections.

4. I have considered the submissions.

5. I find that based on the application filed by the petitioner, the

revenue authorities had issued notice to the affected parties. Exhibit P6

shows that it is due to disputes with regard to the boundary that they left

the spot without conducting the survey. I fail to understand how the 7th

respondent would be prejudiced if the survey is carried out. If the 7th

respondent is in any way aggrieved by the findings of the survey

authorities, he can very well exhaust his remedies in accordance with law.

In that view of the matter, this petition is disposed of directing the

6th respondent to provide assistance if requested by respondents 4 and 5

for carrying out the survey initiated on the basis of Exhibit P5 proceedings.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

JUDGE ps

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.514/1986 OF RANNI SRO DATED 01.04.1986.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.757/1991 OF RANNI SRO DATED 17.06.1991.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE DECREE IN O.S.NO.211/2012 DATED 23.05.2013.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 23.06.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER AND ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS DATED 24.09.2020.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 06.10.2020.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16.11.2020.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R7(a) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.173/2014 OF ARANMULA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE

EXHIBIT R7(b) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.KL0304200946/2020 DATED 22.2.2020 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER AYROOR

EXHIBIT R7(c) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THANDAPER ACCOUNT NO.7441 OF AYROOR VILLAGE.