AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.—Aggrieved by the action resulting in Ext.P8, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. He is the owner of an extent of 37 cents of land in survey Nos. 94/2, 94/3-3, 94/3-4 and 94/2A8 of Thrikkakkara South Village, Kanayannur taluk. He purchased the property as per Ext.P1 sale deed No. 693/85 of the Thrikkakkara Sub Registrar''s office. It is pointed out that he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property, which is having well demarcated boundary also. The petitioner has been remitting land tax also. While so, a re-survey was conducted, wherein the extent of the property owned by the petitioner is short by 22 cents, and further an extent of 10 cents of land covered by Ext.P1 sale deed was shown as Government puramboke. A new sub division was also provided. The petitioner thereafter moved the 3rd respondent to rectify the mistake. Finally, in the survey adalath, proceedings were issued, according to the petitioner, by correcting the mistake, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3. The correction was duly notified and changes were made in the Village Office and in the Registrar''s Office also. Thereafter the petitioner has been paying the land tax regularly.
Alleging that the petitioner has been in possession of Puramboke land, one Mr. M.A. Shaffi, who is stated to be the brother of the additional 5th respondent, had filed a petition before the authorities. Apart from that there were two civil cases, O.S.38/05 & O.S.32/05 between the parties before the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. WP(C) No. 9228/2005 was filed by the said person before this Court styling himself as the Convener of the Janakeeya Samithi and as a Public Interest Litigation, which was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment, wherein this Court refused to intervene in the matter.
Four years thereafter, the petitioner was served with Ext.P7 notice by the Taluk Surveyor proposing to conduct a survey and measurement of the property. It is pointed out that the survey did not take place. Ext.P8 is a copy of the letter sent by the Additional Tahsildar of the Taluk Office, Kanayannur, to the Asst. Director of Survey, Thrikkakara forwarding a copy of the complaint filed by the additional 5th respondent, judgment of this Court etc. Ext.P8 is under challenge in this writ petition.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of Ext.P3, as the matter had attained finality, any probe at this distance of time that too at the instance of the brother of the petitioner in Ext.P6 judgment is unjustified. It is pointed out that Ext.P8 directs the Village officer not to collect any tax from the petitioner and it also prevents the petitioner from making any construction. It is therefore submitted that the attempt by the authorites concerned is only at the instance of the additional 5th respondent, who is also styling as the Convener of an organization.
The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating various aspects. Even going by the averments in the counter affidavit, no action has been finalized against the petitioner.
Evidently, Ext.P8 is only an interdepartmental communication between the offices of the Additional Tahsildar and the Assistant Director of Survey. Of course therein in the foot note a request has been made not to collect tax from the petitioner till orders are passed by the Office of the Asst. Director of Survey Superintendent. Therefore, it is for the office of the Survey Superintendent to take a decision whether to proceed further in the matter. Ext.P8 is only a request made by the Additional Tahsildar to the Asst. Director of Survey and it is up to the Asst. Director of Survey to give a reply to the Tahsildar, indicating action, if any, in the matter.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the light of GO(MS) No. 200/10/Revenue dated 31/05/2010 the Additional Tahsildar alone can consider any complaint regarding survey. The said submission is opposed by the learned Government Pleader. In that view of the matter, the competent authority will go through the above Government Order before proceeding further, to verify whether Tahsildar is the proper authority.
Learned Counsel for the additional 5th respondent submitted that the 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit opposing the prayers sought for. The contention in a nut shell is that Ext.P3 has been issued improperly and that the petitioner is in possession of Puramboke land.
Since none of the statutory authorities have issued any proceedings adverse to the petitioner so far, there is no scope for any interference in this matter, at this stage. If any action is proposed to be taken pursuant to Ext.P8, the petitioner will be given due notice and all his objections will be considered duly and a personal hearing also will be offered.
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.