Mohammed vs (The Tahsildar
2021 Latest Caselaw 20878 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

         WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 14TH ASWINA, 1943

                            WP(C) NO. 26915 OF 2020

PETITIONERS:

     1         MOHAMMED,
               AGED 70 YEARS,
               S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY @ AYAMUTTY,
               EEARATTUM VAKKATH HOUSE,
               THRITHLA AMSOM DESOM,
               THRITHALA P.O., V.K.KADAVU PATTAMBI,
               PALAKKAD - 679 534

     2         FATHIMATH SUHARA,
               AGED 45 YEARS,
               D/O.MOHAMMED,
               EEARATTUM VAKKATH HOUSE,
               THRITHLA AMSOM DESOM,
               THRITHALA P.O.,
               V.K.KADAVU PATTAMBI,
               PALAKKAD - 679 534

     3         SHAMEERA,
               AGED 38 YEARS,
               EEARATTUM VAKKATH HOUSE,
               THRITHLA AMSOM DESOM, THRITHALA P.O.,
               V.K.KADAVU PATTAMBI,
               PALAKKAD 679 534

               BY ADVS.
               E.S.SANEEJ
               SRI.N.ABHILASH


RESPONDENTS:

     1         (THE TAHSILDAR
               TALUK OFFICE, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679 303)
               IS CORRECTED AS
               THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
               LAND REVENUE,
               TALUK OFFICE, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 303
               AS PER ORDER DATED 11/1/21 IN IA 1/21 IN WP(C) 26915/2020

     2         TALUK SURVEYOR
               TALUK OFFICE, PATTAMBI,
               PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 303

     3         HEAD SURVEYOR
               TALUK OFFICE, PATTAMBI,
               PALAKKAD DISTRICT -679 303

     4         VILLAGE OFFICER
               THRITHALA,
               PALAKKAD DISTRICT 679 534
 W.P(C)No.26915 of 2020

                                     2

       5      *ADDL R5 KV YOOSUF KUTTY,
              AGED 78 YEARS,
              S/O MOIDEENKUTTY,
              KALLIVALAPPIL,PALAKKAD (P.O)
              ( MAIN POST OFFICE), PUTHOOR ROAD,
              PALAKKAD - 678001
              *ADDITIONAL R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30/3/2021 IN
              IA 2/2021 IN WP(C)26915/2020



  OTHER PRESENT:

              SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHIS GEORGE - GP

  THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2021,

  THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C)No.26915 of 2020

                                   3



                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 06th day of October, 2021

The petitioners have approached this Court

impugning Ext.P2 order issued by the Taluk Surveyor,

rejecting their request to conduct measurement of the

property covered by Ext.P1 - Tax receipt.

2. The petitioners say that the only reason stated in

Ext.P2, while rejecting their request, is that a suit is pending;

which, in fact, was filed by them against the party

respondents, seeking easement over a pathway leading to

the property in question.

3. The petitioners say that this certainly could not

have been used as a reason to reject their request for

measurement of their property and they say that they require

the said action to be completed quickly, since they are in

financial crisis and requires to alienate a portion of it W.P(C)No.26915 of 2020

urgently.

4. I have examined Ext.P2 and find as is also admitted

by the learned Government Pleader, Sri.Rajeev Jyothish

George - that the Taluk Surveyor has rejected the petitioners

request only because a suit is pending. However, the said

Authority did not consider whether the said suit was filed by

the petitioners or the reason for them in having done so. I,

therefore, fail to understand why the said Authority should

have refused the measurement of the property of the

petitioners, merely because they had filed a suit against the

party respondents seeking easement over a pathway.

In the afore circumstances, I set aside Ext.P2 and

direct the Taluk Surveyor to immediately conduct a survey of

the petitioners' property covered by Ext.P1- Tax receipt, in

terms of their request, after following due procedure; thus

culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously

as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of W.P(C)No.26915 of 2020

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, if any interdictory orders are

brought to the notice of the Taluk Surveyor by any person

with respect to the measurement of the property in question,

he shall advert to it while completing the process as ordered

above; and will then also be entitled not to pursue the

proceedings and to issue an appropriate order recording the

reason, if it so happens in future.

This writ petition is thus ordered.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

NR/06/10/2021 W.P(C)No.26915 of 2020

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2019 -2020 DATED 12.6.2019

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19/12/2019

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.47/2019 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PATTAMBI

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN RP. NO.767 OF 2016 IN WPC 22089/2016 DATED 20.9.2016

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF COURT, PATTAMBI IN IA NO. 259/2019 IN O.S 47/2019 DATED 16.03.2019.