Shajahan vs The Secretary To Government
2025 Latest Caselaw 1025 Ker

Kerala High Court

Shajahan vs The Secretary To Government on 15 July, 2025

Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar

Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar

                                            2025:KER:52635
                              1
WA No.772 of 2020


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

  THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

                              &

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1947

                    WA NO. 772 OF 2020

      AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.03.2020 IN WP(C)
NO.32493 OF 2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

         SHAJAHAN, AGED 76 YEARS
         S/O.SHOUKATH ALI, KOTTOOR HOUSE,
         VADKKUMTHALA , KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM
         DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT A-12, SHANTHINAGAR
         ANNEX, RAJAGIRI PO, NJALAKAM KARA, THRIKKAKARA
         NORTH ,, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, 683104

         BY ADVS.
         DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.)
         SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM)
         SRI.K.SUDHINKUMAR
         SRI.S.K.ADHITHYAN
         SRI.SABU PULLAN
         SRI.GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

   1     THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
         REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001

   2     THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
                                          2025:KER:52635
                           2
WA No.772 of 2020


         KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM -691 001

   3     THE DIRECTOR
         SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, OFFICE OF THE
         DIRECTOR, SURVEY BHAVAN, VAZHUTHACAD,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695014

   4     THE JOINT DIRECTOR
         SOUTHERN RANGE, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS,
         OFFICER OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
         CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001

   5     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
         SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY
         DIRECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691 013

   6     NOORJAHAN.K.S.W/O. AMANULLA, MAHIMA,,
         VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM -691 010

   7     K.S.SHAMSHARJIHAN,
         W/O. SHAJAHAN, SHA MAHAL, ARA-20, MUNDAKKAL
         P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 010

   8     HASHIM, S/O. SHOUKATH ALI, KOTTOOR HOUSE, C-
         33/1, VADAKKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM -691 010

         BY ADVS.
         SHRI.V.PREMCHAND
         SRI.MOHAMMED SADIQUE.T.A
         SHRI.K.M.MOHAMMED YUSUFF (M-1323)
         SRI.K.P.MAJEED
         SHRI.SHANKAR V.
         SR GP B VINITHA
     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                       2025:KER:52635
                                   3
WA No.772 of 2020




                               JUDGMENT

Dr.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

This Writ appeal impugns the judgment dated 04.03.2020 of

a learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.32493 of 2018.

2. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for disposal of

this writ appeal are as follows:

The appellant before us was the petitioner in the writ

petition aforementioned. He is an Engineer by profession and was

working abroad and retired from service in August 2017. Respondents

6, 7 and 8 are his siblings. The father and mother of the appellant

were owners in possession of 2 Acres 36 Cents of land in Sy Nos.8717

and 8718 of Vadakkumthala Village, Karunagappally Taluk in Kollam

District. Under a partition deed No.1850/79 dated 11.06.1979 of the

SRO, Karunagappally, the appellant and the 8 th respondent - brother

received 68 Cents of land each from out of the property that was in the

joint ownership of his father and mother. His two sisters received 60

Cents and 40 Cents respectively from the said property. It is not in

dispute before us that immediately after the partition of the property,

and the allotment of their respective shares in the land to the appellant

and his siblings, there was no demarcation of the property, that was 2025:KER:52635

allotted to each of them under the partition deed and no mutation

carried out in their respective names.

3. In 1988, the appellant purchased a further extent

of 20 Cents of land from the 7 th respondent - sister. Even then, the

appellant did not choose to mutate the land purchased from his sister

or get the total properties held by him demarcated. While so, in a

Survey Adalat that was held in 2000, the other siblings caused a

survey and demarcation to be conducted of their properties covered by

the partition deed and got their respective shares demarcated and

mutated in their names. The appellant states that he was completely

in the dark of the said developments.

4. The appellant states that, sometime in 2015, he

obtained information regarding the mutation carried out by his siblings

in 2000 pursuant to the Survey Adalat. Thereupon, he found that there

was a shortage, to an extent of almost 19 cents, in the extent of land

that stood in his name. While, according to him, he ought to have had

88 cents in his possession, including the 20 cents that he purchased

from the 7th respondent in 1988, on actual measurement he was found

to be in possession of only 69 cents. He, therefore, approached the 3 rd

respondent - Director of Survey and Land Records with a complaint,

pointing out the alleged irregularities that had apparently been 2025:KER:52635

occasioned in the Survey Adalat conducted in 2000. The Director

called for a report in respect of the complaint, and by Ext.P4 report the

Joint Director opined that there had been some irregularities in the

Survey Adalat of 2000 which were required to be corrected to set the

records straight. Thereafter the report appears to have been

forwarded to the Office of the 3 rd respondent - Director for further

action. We note in this connection that, in the meanwhile, by Ext.P5

communication, a Deputy Director appears to have opined that steps

should be taken for cancelling the Survey Adalat findings of 2000. It is

unfathomable as to how a Deputy Director could have issued such a

direction when the Director himself was in seisin of the matter and the

report of the Joint Director was furnished before the Director.

5. Since there was no action forthcoming from the

respondents, the appellant approached this Court through writ petition

No.9035 of 2018 seeking an implementation of the said communication

issued by the Deputy Director. We are given to understand that by a

judgment dated 16.03.2018 a direction was issued to the Tahsildar

(LR), who was delegated the powers of the Director by then, to take a

decision in the matter after hearing the affected persons. In the

proceedings that followed, Ext.P10 order was passed by the Tahsildar

(LR), who verified the documents, land and statements of the parties to

arrive at the following conclusions:

2025:KER:52635

1. All the above mentioned parties are possessing their respective properties with demarcated boundaries.

2. It is convinced that 16 years before the sub division sketch was prepared accurately by demarcating the boundaries. (The sub division sketch cannot be prepared without examining the property)

3. With regard to the Adalath proceedings notices was send to all the concerned parties on 21.11.2001.

4. A condition is also mentioned in the deed that if there is any difference in the extent mentioned in the partition deed the same will be borne by them.

5. It is seen that transfer has been effected after the sub divisions from the adalath. It is also seen that the said transfers done are also very old.

6. On examining the statements of the other parties there is road on all the three sides of the property of the complainant. Moreover, the said property is also a prime property comparing to the property of others.

7. Further, no complaints were submitted for 15 years against the adalath proceedings conducted in the year 2000-2001 with regard to the partition which had taken place in the year 1979.

8. Moreover, before effecting the sub division the complainant had given his property for expansion of the road and hence there occurred deficiency in his extent.

9. As said property is transferred to various persons, the action of cancelling the mutation effected as per the adalath in the year 2000-2001 will affect many families adversely."

6. It is the aforesaid order of the Tahisldar, that was

impugned by the appellant in the writ petition inter alia on the

contention that the findings in the impugned order of the Tahsildar

(LR) was contrary to the suggestions in Ext.P5 communication issued

by the Deputy Director. According to the appellant, such reversal of

the decision taken earlier was not legally permissible.

2025:KER:52635

7. The learned Single Judge, who considered the writ

petition, took note of the submissions of the learned Government

Pleader as also that of the counsel for the party respondents, that

there had been several transactions in relation to the same property

after the execution of the partition deed in 1979. The learned Judge,

therefore, found that a measurement and demarcation to ascertain

whether there was any defect in the demarcation effected consequent

to the Survey Adalat in 2000 would not be possible without hearing the

parties who had obtained rights in respect of the property subsequent

thereto. The learned Judge was of the view that it was for the

appellant to institute a civil suit for identification and demarcation of

his property after impleading all necessary parties.

8. In the appeal before us, it is the submission of

Sri.P. Mohandas, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the

learned Single Judge ought not to have relegated the appellant to a

civil court since the order impugned in the writ petition was clearly

against the earlier directions issued by the Deputy Director, which

mandated that the findings of the 2000 Survey Adalat be nullified. Per

contra, it is the submission of Sri.V. Premchand and

Sri.K.M.Mohammed Yousuf, the learned counsel appearing for the

party respondents as also Smt.B.Vinitha, the learned Government

Pleader appearing on behalf of the State, that the findings of the 2025:KER:52635

learned Single Judge do not warrant any interference by this Court in

this intra-court appeal.

9. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we

find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the party

respondents and the Government Pleader that the impugned judgment

of the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. We say

so because, we find that as a matter of fact, the appellant himself had

not bothered to effect a mutation of the properties received by him in

the partition of 1979. If he had caused a demarcation of the property

allotted to him under the partition deed and mutated the same in his

name, there would not have been any problem of the kind faced by him

now. We also note with some surprise that even in 1988, when the

appellant purchased a further extent of 20 cents of land from his

sister, the 7th respondent herein, he did not bother to cause a fresh

demarcation of the extent of property owned by him and get the same

mutated in his name. In the backdrop of the inaction of the appellant,

he cannot be heard to contend that the findings in a Survey Adalat that

was conducted 15 years ago were wrong, and that as a consequence of

the demarcation effected pursuant to the Adalat, he had lost

significant extents of land that were in his possession. It is also

significant, as rightly noticed by the learned Single Judge, that there

have been many transactions in relation to the properties that were 2025:KER:52635

partitioned in 1979, in the years between 1979 and 2015. Any attempt

to reopen the findings of the 2000 Survey Adalat would automatically

affect the interests of subsequent purchasers of portions of the said

properties who are not before us in these proceedings. Under the

circumstances, the finding of the learned Single Judge in the impugned

judgment, that the appellant has to initiate proceedings before a civil

court of competent jurisdiction to get his property demarcated, after

arraying all the subsequent purchasers of portions of the property

covered by the partition deed as necessary parties, is the most

practical one.

We, therefore, dismiss this writ appeal as devoid of merit.

sd/-

Dr.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

sd/-

P.M. MANOJ JUDGE

das