Sivanandan vs District Collector and Others

Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioner claims title and possession over different plots of land covered by Exts. P11 to P15 patta. It is stated that in respect of these lands Petitioner has been paying tax and this claim is sought to be substantiated by referring to Exts.P5 to P10 receipts.

It is stated that subsequently he had to approach this Court for police protection when his possession was disturbed and that writ petition was disposed of Ext.P4judgment. It is submitted that during the hearing, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the property has not been identified and that in the absence of such an identification it was not possible to render police protection. Taking note of the submissions, this Court by Ext.P4judgment directed that the Tahsildar will identify the property and thereafter necessary protection will be afforded.

Petitioner submits that accordingly the Tahsildar took efforts for identifying the property and finally realised that the property in the possession of the Petitioner was situated in Sy. No. 498 of Manjumala village as against Sy No. 183/1 mentioned in the pattas issued to the Petitioner. It is stated that thereupon, the Tahsildar made Ext.P16 report. It is stated that in the aforesaid circumstances Petitioner made Ext.P17 representation to the District Collector requesting that the survey number mentioned in the patta should be corrected. According to him, the District Collector did not take any action on the representation and hence this writ petition has been filed for appropriate direction.

Additional 7th Respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The case of the additional 7th Respondent is that through out the Petitioner has been claiming title and possession over properties situated in Sy. No. 183/1 of Manjumala village. They refer to the pattas relied on by the Petitioner, the judgment in O.S No. 358/1994 rendered by the Sub Court, Kattappana, Ext.R7 (a), the decree in that suit and Ext. R7 (c), the judgment obtained by the additional 6th Respondent restraining the Petitioner from trespassing into the property in Sy. No. 498 of Manjumala village. Relying on Ext. R7 (b), additional 7th Respondent also submits that they have purchased the entire property situated in Sy No. 498 of Manjumala village and therefore the Petitioner has no claim over any portion of the property situated in that survey number.

Essentially therefore the issue that arise for consideration which exactly is the property that belongs to the Petitioner on which Petitioner has possession. This factual issue is covered by various judgments and is hotly contested by the parties. Such disputed question of fact cannot be decided by the District Collector in the guise of correction of a mistake of the survey number mentioned inpattas. Therefore, if the Petitioner has a claim that the property in his possession is situated in Sy. No. 498 as against the Sy. No. 183/1 mentioned in the pattas, there course available to the Petitioner is to approach the Civil Court and obtain appropriate reliefs from that court. Therefore, in the circumstances, this Court will not be justified in directing the Respondents to consider the representation of the Petitioner.

Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.