AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice K.Vinod Chandran
The petitioner obtained 78 cents of land as per Ext.P1 settlement deed from his father who in turn had purchased the said property in the year 1968. The petitioner had been paying basic tax for the extent specified in Ext.P1 ie; 78 cents of land (31.56 ares) till 1993 as is evidenced by Ext.P5 receipt. The petitioner contends that the petitioner has been paying the tax for the said 78 cents of land for the subsequent years also. However, when in the year 2009 the petitioner approached the Village Office, Kadamkudi for payment of tax, he was informed that on a resurvey the petitioner''s boundaries were demarcated and only 59 cents (24 ares ) of land comprised in the survey number is the extent to which the petitioner can legitimately lay claim of ownership as per Ext.P1 title deed. The petitioner hence approached the District Collector by Ext.P6, since an earlier application Ext.P2 made before the second respondent did not evoke any response. However, after Ext.P6 was filed before the District Collector the second respondent issued Ext.P7. It was stated in Ext.P7 that on the examination of the title deed with reference to the revenue records it was found that the property is comprised in Re-survey 524/6 of this Kadamakudi Village and by reason of the property not being bounded by exact boundaries, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered. The Re-survey obviously was conducted under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961. The same provides for an appeal against the orders of the Survey Officer passed u/s 6, 7, 9 or Section 10. Sections 6 speaks of notification to be issued whenever any survey is ordered, Section 7 is with reference to cost of survey operations and Sections 9 and 10 are respectively with respect to the recording of the boundaries when the same is undisputed or when determination is called for in the event of a dispute, respectively. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is disabled from filing an appeal since there is no order or notification under any of these sections read above. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out the amendment brought to the enactment in the year 2007 by the Kerala Survey and Boundaries (Amendment Act) 2007 wherein Section 13(A) was inserted.
While Section 13 speaks of completion of demarcation being notified, Section 13A specifically confers power of revision on the Collector. Section 13A is a non obstante clause conferring the Collector with powers of revision to call for and examine the records in respect of the determination of any boundary which has been completed and the fact of such completion have been notified u/s 13. The Collector on such examination on being satisfied of the illegality of such boundaries, has the powers to modify and reverse the same, on the grounds of any discrepancy, inaccuracy, defect or mistake of any kind that has crept in with respect to the determination u/s 13. Needless to say that this power can be invoked on an application made by an aggrieved person, but any orders are to be passed only after serving notice to affected parties. Ext.P6 though does not refer to the provisions of the enactment can be treated as a revision u/s 13A and it is for the Collector to call for and examine the records of resurvey in proceedings u/s 13 A. In the circumstances of the above case, I direct the petitioner to place a certified copy of this judgment before the District Collector, first respondent within a period of two weeks from the receipt of the same, as also a copy of Ext.P6. If Ext.P6 is not available in the records of the office of the District Collector the copy produced by the petitioner shall be treated as an application u/s 13A, and proceedings shall be taken with due notice to all affected parties and concluded at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of.