Manarul Huda Trust vs The Revenue Divisional Officer and Others

S. Siri Jagan, J.—The Petitioner is a Trust owning certain land, in which, they are conducting a public school. The 5th Respondent applied for possession certificate in respect of 10 cents of land in R.S. No. 55/1B, which, according to the Petitioner, is the survey number of 5.45 acres of land belonging to the Trust and the same was part of the properties of the Trust. The Village Officer and the Tahsildar, after making enquiries, reported that the 5th Respondent does not have any land in R.S. No. 55/1B. According to the Petitioner, the 5th Respondent filed a complaint before the Revenue Minister on 18.3.2003 alleging that Ext.P4 report requires reconsideration and, on the basis of that complaint, the Revenue Minister directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to cause survey and demarcation of the property is R.S. No. 55/1. Pursuant to the same, Ext.P8 direction has been issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kozhikode, to the Taluk Surveyor of Kozhikode, directing measurement and demarcation of the properties in R.S. No. 55/1. Pursuant thereto, Exts.P9 and P10 notices have been issued for demarcation of the land. The Petitioner is challenging Exts.P8, P9 and P10 in this writ petition seeking the following relief;

Issue a Writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction, quashing Ext.P8, Ext.P9 and Ext.P10 finding that they are illegal and unsustainable in law.

According to the Petitioner, once the concerned Revenue officials have reported that the 5th Respondent has no property in this particular survey number, the Government has no power or jurisdiction to interfere with the matter by directing the RDO to measure and demarcate the properties. According to the Petitioner, u/s 4 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961, if at all the Government could do it, that can be only by a notification in the gazette, which has not been done in this case.

A counter affidavit has been field by the 5th Respondent, wherein the contention raised by the 5th Respondent is that he purchased the 10 cents of land in survey No. 55/1B from out of 1.49 acres of land owned by one Sri.K. Sankaranarayanan who obtained Ext.P5(d) certificate of purchase in respect of the property. Therefore, the report of the Revenue officials are not based on true facts and that is why he approached the Minister in the matter. He supports the impugned proceedings on the ground that, in the circumstances, the Government has amble powers to direct measurement and demarcation of the property in question.

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

Evidently, there is a dispute regarding the title to the properties in the particular survey number as between the Petitioner on the one hand and the 5th Respondent on the other. Such disputes can be resolved only in a civil suit filed for that purpose. I am of opinion that in such circumstances, the Minister ought to have relegated the 5th Respondent to the remedy of filing a suit. As such, the impugned proceedings are not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are quashed. I make it clear that this will not stand in the way of either the Petitioner or the 5th Respondent filing a suit before the appropriate civil court in respect of their claim of title over the properties in question.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.