Dileep vs Tahsildar, Karunagappally Taluk, Taluk Office, Civil Station, Karunagappally, Kollam Pin 690544

T.R. Ravi, J.

The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to complete the proceedings proposed in Ext.P8 notice and to point out the boundaries of the property covered by Ext.P1 and to re-fix the survey stones on the property.

The petitioners are the owners of the property covered under Schedule A of Ext.P1 document of title. According to the petitioners, the properties are well demarcated from the property of the 4th respondent. Ext.P3 is the judgment dated 27.3.1995, passed by the Munsiff Court, Karunagappally in O.S. No.686 of 1991, filed by the 2nd petitioner and her husband (since deceased) against the predecessor-in-interest of the 4th respondent, who owned the adjacent property. Ext.P4 is the decree in the suit. The suit was for a declaration regarding the right of the plaintiffs over plaint D Schedule property and an order of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the right of the plaintiffs. The suit was decreed and the decree is still in force. The petitioners’ grievance is that the 4th respondent has trespassed into the petitioners’ property and removed survey stones placed by the authority, in spite of the decree of the civil court which is binding on the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent had preferred Ext.P6 complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam on 1.2.2012 alleging that survey officer had laid survey stones in the property. The Village Officer, Chavara has in Ext.P7 reported that the complaint of the 4th respondent was baseless and that no anomaly or defects is noticed in the re-survey proceedings.

The petitioners submit that the 4th respondent again removed the survey stones on 22.09.2019 and caused destruction to the boundary of the petitioners. The petitioners submitted an application before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent on 19.4.2022 issued notice in Form 12 of the Survey Manual intimating that the land will be surveyed on 22.04.2022 and the boundaries determined. However, the survey proposed could not be carried out owing to the objection of the 4th respondent. The petitioners submit that they had obtained permission for construction of a residential building in their property from the Chavara Grama Panchayat on 22.12.2020 and since there is no proper survey plan, they are not able to obtain any loan and are forced to live in a rented building. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. According to the 4th respondent, the petitioners have no right, title, or interest in the property in question. It is submitted that the property belonged to Sri Govindan, the father of the 4th respondent. It is stated that Govindan had 26 cents of property in Re.Sy.No.8152 of Chavara Village, Karunagappally Taluk out of which, he had transferred 12 cents to one Vimalamma. It is stated that later he repurchased 10½ cents from out of the said 12 cents and the remaining 1½ cents was purchased by 1st petitioner's father. It is stated that the 1st petitioner's father had also purchased land situated on the northern side of the 4th respondent’s property, from Govindan's brother. The 4th respondent claims right over the properties held by late Govindan, as his only daughter. It is stated that the suit filed in 1995 did not take in the property of the 4th respondent. It is further stated that even though in 2012, the 1st petitioner's father Sri Bhaskaran had filed E.P.No.106/2012 contending that the judgment debtor had demolished the fence which separated the scheduled property and seeking the assistance of the court for constructing a compound wall, by Ext.R4(b) order dated 13.8.2015, the petition was dismissed. The 4th respondent submits that there is no boundary dispute between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and that there is no change in the position of the survey stones from the date of the decree and there is no need for survey of the property.

The contentions raised are primarily in the nature of a civil dispute which cannot be determined in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioners have a case that the 4th respondent has trespassed into their property covered by the decree, it is for them to initiate necessary civil action. Having said that, the fact remains that the 2nd respondent in issuing Ext.P8 has only proceeded to perform his official duty. The 4th respondent does not have any right to interfere with the performance of duty by a public official. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the interests of justice will be served if the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P8 are taken to their logical end, and the boundaries of the properties of the petitioners and the 4th respondent are identified, protecting the rights of the 4th respondent.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to complete the proceedings as per Ext.P8 with notice to the petitioners and the 4th respondent and the boundaries are marked and it is ensured that the survey stones which had been placed in the properties are in their position. The entire process shall be completed within 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. If the 2nd respondent observed any discrepancies in the boundaries during the course of the measurement, he shall point out the same to the petitioners and the 4th respondent and relegate the parties to their remedy before the competent civil court. The possession of either of the parties shall not be disturbed under the pretext of the survey.