IMPORTANT POINTS
The one year period enumerated under Section 14 of the Act can only be applied in a suit challenging the determination which would come under the purview of either Section 9 or Section 10 of the Act, besides Sections 6 and 7 of the Act and in so far as Sections 9 and 10 are concerned, the determination should be only with respect to the internal arrangement of a particular survey based on ownership and there is no scope for re-defining the boundary line of a particular survey except for the purpose of Section 5 of the Act. If it is with respect to any re-defining of boundary line of a particular survey other than the one under Section 5 of the Act, it is without any authority and a suit for rectification of mistake crept in the resurvey re-defining the boundary already settled earlier would stand outside the purview of Section 14 of the Act and hence, governed by the provisions of Indian Limitation Act, 1908 and the new Act, Limitation Act, 1963 as well, wherein there will not be any application of one year period provided under Section 14 of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Whether Section 14 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') would attract in a suit for rectification of mistake crept in the resurvey plan is the question essentially came up for consideration in this appeal.

2. A suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction to rectify the resurvey was dismissed by both the trial court and the first appellate court, against which the plaintiff came up with this appeal. The dispute is with respect to 25 cents of property belonged to the Panchayath, the plaintiff. The 4th defendant claimed 36 cents of property lying adjoining with the plaint schedule based on a family partition and it forms part of a large extent of 2 acre 36 cents. As per resurvey, its extent is only 31 cents.

3. One of the reliefs sought by the plaintiff is to rectify the mistake crept in the resurvey plan in respect of the plaint schedule property. Though a survey commission was issued, they could not identify the property based on the document of title due to the non-availability of old survey records. Attempts made by the plaintiff to obtain a certified copy of old survey records also not served the purpose. Earlier this court had issued a survey commission, who in turn submitted mahazar, plan and report, but the surveyor could not locate the property due to the non- availability of old survey records. This court hence issued a direction to the survey authorities and in compliance of the said direction, Exts.R1(a) to R1(e) documents, the copies of old survey plan, Litho plan and other connected records, were produced.

4. In the trial court, the commission who visited the property prepared the plan based on the resurvey plan overlooking the relief sought by the plaintiff for rectification of mistake crept in the resurvey plan. There is no physical boundaries separating the property of plaintiff from that of the defendants, except a portion of Kayyala, which was not accepted by both the courts below as the dividing line.

5. The resurvey conducted is under challenge and sought to rectify the mistake crept in the resurvey plan. It was objected on the ground that the suit was filed after the expiry of one year after the finalization of resurvey and that the hit of Section 14 of the Act would come into play. Admittedly, resurvey was conducted not only on the basis of old survey records or earlier survey plan, but also on the basis of possession, which is a matter to be adjudged and adjudicated by a civil court when dispute arises. It is neither permissible nor advisable for the resurvey authorities to refix the boundary line of particular survey under the guise of resurvey based on possession. No such power can be vested with the resurvey authority and hence what is done by them by refixing the boundary based on possession can only be considered as without any authority or exceeding the authority vested with them. The resurvey authority cannot exercise the jurisdiction of a civil court to fix any boundary based on possession. The possession is really a matter to be decided by a civil court. The power vested with the survey authority under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act is relating to record an undisputed boundary or to determine any dispute of boundary with reasons. Sections 13 and 14 of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 are extracted below for reference:

“13. Completion of demarcation to be notified.—When the survey of any land or boundary which has been notified under section 4, or ordered under section 5 has been completed in accordance with the orders passed under section 9, section 10 or section 11, the Survey Officer shall notify the fact in the Gazette and a copy of such notification shall be posted in the village office, if any, of the village to which the survey relates. Unless the survey so notified is modified by a decree of a civil court under the provisions of section 14, the record of the survey shall be conclusive proof that the