AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.M. Shaffique, J.
APPENDIX
PETITIONER''S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1.
Photocopy of the sale deed No. 3848/90 of the s.r.o. kanjirappally
EXHIBIT P2.
Photocopy of the sale deed No. 4550/92 of the s.r.o. kanjirappally
EXHIBIT P3 :
Copy of the application for mutation dated 20.05.2009
EXHIBIT P4 :
The notice issued to the petitioner under clause xvi para 20 of survey manual
EXHIBIT P5 :
Copy of the notices issued under clause xvi para 20 of survey manual to respondents 3
EXHIBIT P5(a) :
Copy of the notices issued under clause xvi para 20 of survey manual to respondents 4
EXHIBIT P5(b) :.
copy of the notices issued under clause xvi para 20 of survey manual to respondents 5
EXHIBIT P5(c) :
copy of the notices issued under clause xvi para 20 of survey manual to respondents 6
EXHIBIT P5(d) :
copy of the notices issued under clause xvi para 20 of survey manual to respondents 7
EXHIBIT P5(e) :
copy of the notices issued under clause xvi para 20 of survey manual to respondents 8
EXHIBIT P5(d) :
copy of the notices issued under clause xvi para 20 of survey manual to respondents 9
EXHIBIT P6 :
photocopy of the g.o. 200/2010 dated 31.05.2010 downloaded from the web site of survey directorate .
EXHIBIT P7 :
copy of the information dated 14.03.2011 issued from the taluk office kanjirappally under right to information act.
EXHIBIT P8 :
copy of the proceedings of the 1st respondent
EXHIBIT P9 :
copy of the relevant clause of chapter xiii of kerala survey manual.
RESPONDENTS'' EXHIBITS :-
NIL
Petitioner complains that his property having an extent of 44.51 Ares in Sy. No. 230/22 covered by the Sale Deed No. 3846/90 and 14.97 Ares in Sy. No. 230/22 covered by the Sale Deed No. 4550/92 produced as Ext. P1 and P2 was not referred in the re-survey plan which was under taken by the Survey Department during the re-survey proceedings. It is the case of the petitioner that when he approached the Revenue Authorities for effecting mutation of the property it was not permitted on the ground that his property does not find a place as per re-survey records. Therefore, when an Adalath was proclaimed by the Government for deciding disputes in relation to re-survey matters, the petitioner filed an application to measure and demarcate his property and correct the re-survey plan prepared by the survey department. It is the case of the petitioner that though the matter was referred to the 1st respondent, no action was seen taken. But when he applied under the Right to Information Act, he was supplied with a copy of the report prepared by the Thahsildar as Ext. P7. From Ext. P7 it is seen that though the property was measured and demarcated when notice was issued to the neighbouring land owners, they raised certain disputes and therefore it was mentioned that the authority was not in a position to finalise the survey and therefore nothing can be done in the matter. Ext. P8 is an order issued by the Thahsildar stating that since there is dispute with reference to the above property, the Adalath cannot prepare any document in relating to the same. Learned Counsel for the petitioner laid reliance upon Section 10 and 11 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 which reads as under:-
S. 10. Power of Survey Officer to determine and record a disputed boundary with reasons. - (1) Where a boundary is disputed, the Survey Officer shall, after making such inquiries as he considers necessary, determine the boundary and record it in accordance with his decision with reasons in writing for arriving at that decision.
(2) Notice of every decision of the Survey Officer under the sub- section(1) shall be given in the prescribed manner to the parties to the dispute and other registered holders of the lands the boundaries of which may be affected by the decision.
S. 11. "Appeal against orders of Survey Officer. - (1) Any person aggrieved by a decision u/s 6, Section 7, Section 9 or Section 10 may appeal to such authority as may be prescribed. The appellate authority shall record the reasons for the decision in writing and shall give notice of such decision in the prescribed manner to the parties to the appeal. Any modification of the Survey Officer''s decision ordered by the appellate authority shall be noted in the record prepared u/s 9 or Section 10 as the case may be.
(2) A copy of the order and a copy of the map recording the boundaries as determined u/s 9, Section 10 or sub-section(1) of this section shall be furnished to any person interested in such order or map, as the case may be on his application and payment of such cost as may be prescribed."
Going by Section 10 of the Act that when there is a boundary dispute, Surveyor shall, after making necessary inquiries determine the boundary and record it in accordance with the decision stating reasons and notice of the decision has to be given in the prescribed manner to the parties in the dispute.
Sec. 11 gives an opportunity to any person aggrieved, to file an appeal against such a survey being done by the Survey Officer.
It is possible that this being a case, where the matter had been referred by the Adalath that no steps had been taken by the authorised officer to determine the dispute but still when there is boundary dispute as stated by the authorities in Ext. P7 and Ext. P8, it is definitely a matter to be considered and the Survey Officer shall consider the matter and shall take an appropriate decision which is appealable as well. In the above circumstances, I direct the 1st respondent to consider the matter in terms of Section 10 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 and pass an order in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and respondents 3 to 9 within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Writ petition is disposed as above.