Kerala High Court
The District Collector vs Muhammed Rasheed on 10 June, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:40511
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 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 20TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO. 1327 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.02.2020 IN WP(C) NO.11567 OF
2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C):
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU P.O.,
IDUKKI DISTRICT,PIN-685 603
2 THE THASILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, PEERUMEDU, PEERUMED P.O.
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 531
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
TALUK OFFICE, PEERUMEDU, PEERUMED P.O.
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 531
4 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA(LAND ASSIGNMENT),
PEERUMEDU, PEERUMED P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 531
5 THE TALUK SURVEYOR,
PEERUMED TALUK ( IN CHARGE OF VAGAMON VILLAGE ),
PEERUMED P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 531
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VAGAMON VILLAGE, VAGAMON P.O.,
PEERUMED TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 503
W.A. No.1327 of 2021
2
2025:KER:40511
BY ADV
SMT.VINITHA B., SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C):
MUHAMMED RASHEED,
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. ABDUL KHADER,
KEERIATHOTTATHIL HOUSE,
NADACKAL P.O., ERATTUPETTA,
KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 121
BY ADVS.
SRI.SHAFIK M.A.
SRI.P.V.SALEEM
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A. No.1327 of 2021
3
2025:KER:40511
JUDGMENT
Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
This writ appeal preferred by the State impugns the judgment
dated 17.02.2020 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.11567 of 2019.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this Writ Appeal are
as follows:
The respondent had approached the writ court through the writ
petition aforementioned seeking a direction to the appellants to consider
Ext.P12 application dated 05.04.2018 that was preferred by him for making
necessary corrections in the revenue records as regards the survey number
of the land belonging him. The respondent had purchased an extent of 76
Ares 49 Square meters of land, from its original assignee, in 2017. We
have deemed it necessary to mention the extent of land in terms of Ares
and Square meters since we find from the perusal of the documents
produced along with the writ petition that the corresponding extent
expressed in cents differs in the documents pertaining to the land when it
was in the possession of the original assignee (192 cents) and when it was
in the possession of the respondent (189 cents). The expression of the
extent of the land in terms of Ares and Square meters, however, is the same
in all the documents. We have therefore to presume that the entirety of the
land that was assigned to the original assignee through Ext.P2 patta in
1981 was subsequently purchased by the respondent herein in 2017.
3. After the respondent purchased the land in question, he was
informed by the revenue authorities that there was a mistake in the survey
2025:KER:40511
number of the lands held by him. It was accordingly, and with a view to
make the necessary corrections in the revenue records, that the
respondent preferred Ext.P12 application. When there was no response to
the said application the respondent approached this Court through the
aforesaid writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order
or direction to the respondent 2 and 3 to consider
Ext.P12 and make necessary corrections in Ext.P2
Patta and other revenue records by putting the correct
survey number of petitioner's land, instead of 967of
Vagamon Village.
ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ,
order or direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to
consider and pass orders on Exhibit P12 applications
in the light of Ext.P10 and P11 circulars and P14 order,
after hearing the petitioner with in a time limit that
may be fixed by this Hon'ble court.
iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ
order or direction to the 2nd respondent to issue NOC
for the land covered by Ext.P1 sale deed in the name of
the petitioner and other co-owner.
iv) grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case
including the cost of this Writ Petition (Civil).
4. Through a counter affidavit and a statement filed by the
appellants in the writ petition, it was pointed out that the survey number
shown in the original Deed of Assignment (Survey No.957) was found to be
erroneous, and that the correct survey number in respect of the land in
question was Survey No.968. That said, it was also mentioned that a
2025:KER:40511
physical verification of the land held by the respondent indicated that the
land was now situated in Survey No.592/pt of Vagamon Village, Peerumed
Taluk in Idukki District.
5. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter found
that, since the land had been identified and shown to be part of Survey
No.592/pt, Ext.P12 application preferred by the respondent had to be acted
upon and the revenue records corrected by showing the respondent's land
as forming part of Survey No.592. Although the State preferred a review
petition seeking a review of the said judgment, the learned Single Judge
found no reason to modify the directions in the original judgment and
dismissed the review petition in limine.
6. In the appeal before us, the submission of the learned
Government Pleader, on behalf of the appellants, is essentially that the
directions of the learned Single Judge, if implemented, would result in an
anomalous situation whereby, going by the original assignment, the land in
the ownership of the respondent would have to be seen as situated within
Survey No.968, but going by the physical verification conducted by the
authorities, the respondent would be seen as in possession of land in
Survey No.592/pt. It is for seeking permission to carry out the necessary
corrections in this regard, and for showing the lands as forming part of
Survey No.968, that the State has now come up in appeal before us.
7. We have heard Adv.Vinitha B., the learned Government pleader
for the appellants/State and Adv.Shafik. M.A., the learned counsel for the
respondent.
2025:KER:40511
8. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find ourselves
unable to accept the submission of the learned Government Pleader on
behalf of the appellants/State. The sequence of events that led to the filing
of the writ petition clearly reveals that it was a mistake occasioned by the
State as early as in 1981, at the time of granting the assignment of the land
in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent, that the
respondent found himself in the peculiar situation where his land was
stated to be situated in a different survey number from what was
mentioned in his title deeds as well as the various certificates issued to him
from time to time by the revenue authorities. We would have thought that
if a mistake in survey numbers was noticed by the State Government at any
point in time, they would have had the magnanimity to suo moto correct
the said mistakes in the revenue records pertaining to each of the affected
land owners, after intimating them of the proposed corrections. What has
been done in the instant case, however, is to subject the land owner in
question to undue harassment by forcing him to prefer applications seeking
a correction of the revenue records pertaining to the land in his possession,
and thereafter informing him that the land in his possession could not have
been assigned even to his predecessor in interest in terms of the Land
Assignment Rules.
9. We cannot countenance such an irresponsible and impertinent
stand taken by the State Government which is supposed to safeguard the
fundamental rights, including the right to privacy and dignity that are
guaranteed to our citizens under the Constitution. While the appellant
State has no material to suggest that the respondent was now in possession
2025:KER:40511
of lands other than what he had obtained from his predecessor in interest,
its insistence on the respondent taking steps to correct the mistakes
occasioned by the revenue officials smacks of unreasonableness, unfairness
and highhandedness. While we therefore see no reason to interfere with
the findings of the learned Single Judge and dismiss this writ appeal, we
also feel that this is an apt case where costs should be imposed on the
State Government for the continued harassment meted out to the
respondent.
10. We accordingly direct that the appellants shall forthwith, and
at any rate within a period of two weeks from today, carry out the
corrections in the revenue records as directed by the learned Single Judge
in the judgment that is impugned in this Writ Appeal. The appellant State
shall also pay costs of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to
the respondent, within a period of two weeks from today. We make it clear
however that it will be open to the State to recover the said amount from
the persons responsible for the mistakes occasioned while recording the
survey number in the revenue records.
The writ appeal is dismissed as above.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
SSS
