Joseph (Died) LHR Impleaded vs State Of Kerala

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J

These appeals have been preferred by the plaintiffs in the suits for declaration and injunction. They claimed title to the plaint schedule properties which were later found out to be a Government land based on the survey records. A finding has been rendered by the court below stating that it is a Government land. Noting the long possession, the Munsiff Court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs holding that the title, if any, belonging to the Government is lost by adverse possession. That finding has been interfered by the Appellate Court in the appeal holding that the possession will become adverse to the Government only after the survey authorities conducted the measurement in the year 1995 and taking note of the fact that the suit was filed only in the year 1995, it was reckoned as no period is lost for the Government to claim their title over the land.

The plaintiffs claimed that the properties are well demarcated by boundaries it is in their possession for a long period. It is submitted that subsequently certain portion of the land has been surrendered for widening the land and a boundary wall has been constructed. It is further submitted that the present dilemma arose consequent upon the anomalies in the survey measurement conducted in the year 1995. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants may be permitted to move the revenue authority to rectify the survey anomalies if there is any threat to their possession and they may be permitted to file a fresh suit in the event the survey authorities fail to rectify the anomalies in the survey. If it is found that the land is belonging to the Government, they may be permitted to raise the plea of adverse possession in that event. It is further submitted that the survey was conducted without issuing notice to them.

The learned Government Pleader opposed the prayers and submitted that the land belonged to the Government and the survey was conducted in accordance with the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961.

The question is whether the appellants can be permitted to withdraw the suits.

There is no doubt to the fact that the appellants are in possession of the land as there is a clear finding in this regard by the court below. The present dilemma appears to have been arisen consequent upon the survey conducted in the year 1995. The appellants pleaded that they have not received any notice. It is submitted that the anomalies exist in the survey conducted, they have statutory remedies under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act to rectify such anomalies.

Having adverted to the submissions as above, I am of the view that the appellants can be permitted to withdraw the suits with liberty to approach the authorities to rectify the anomalies, if any, if the appellants feel further action will be initiated based on the survey conducted in the year 1995. Accordingly, I allow this request and both the suits are permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit, if so warranted. Accordingly, all the findings in these matters are set aside. With liberty as above, these appeals are disposed of.