IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of procedural compliance in property disputes, directing the impleadment of the Panchayath and appointment of a surveyor for effective adjudication.

JUDGMENT :

(BASANT BALAJI, J.)

This original petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :

a) Call for records related to OS 92/2011 from the 2^nd Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam,

b) To direct the trial Court to formally complete the process of impleading of Kumbalam Grama Panchayath as an additional party pursuant to Exhibit P-10 for proper adjudication of the case,

c) To direct the Trial Court to pass orders to the effect that the Survey Commission is conducted with the participation of Respondent No:3/Additional Defendant No:3 and also Kumbalam Grama Panchayath,

d) Direct the Trial Court to appoint another Private Surveyor to assist the advocate commissioner from the panel already submitted by the Counsel for Petitioners/Additional Plaintiffs in OS 92/2011 and to do physical survey of the properties as prayed for in the commission application, and

e) Issue such other reliefs as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The petitioners herein are the additional plaintiffs in O.S.No.92 of 2011 on the files of the 2^nd Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. The suit was filed for declaration, fixation of boundary and injunction over the plaint ’C’ schedule property which is the balance extent leftover in ’A’ schedule property. The defendants had entered appearance and filed written statement contending that no part of the property belongs to C.P.Joseph, in Re-Survey block No.17, Re.Sy.No.48/21. The original plaintiff filed a commission application as I.A. No.818 of 2013 to conduct the measurement of the plaint schedule properties with the assistance of a Taluk Surveyor based on the Title Deed of the plaintiffs and also upon old survey records. The commissioner filed a report.

3. The original plaintiff filed W.P.(C) No.12260 of 2011, for a direction to the revenue authorities to demarcate and provide separate sub-division Nos. to the property owned by C.P.Joseph. This Court, by judgment dated 12.04.2011, disposed of the writ petition directing the Taluk authorities to consider and pass orders on the complaint filed by the original plaintiff. Thereafter, the inspection was conducted, and the sketch was prepared. The defendants filed a review petition as R.P.No.200 of 2011, seeking the review of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.12260 of 2011. That R.P. was disposed of directing the Taluk Authorities to consider and pass orders in the application filed by the plaintiff under Section 13A of the Kerala Surveys and Boundaries Act, within six weeks. Based on the report, the Additional Tahsildar (LR) closed the application and forwarded the file to sub-divide and effect mutation of the said 1.96 Ares mistakenly included in Re-survey Block No.17, Re.Sy.No.48/21 to the name of the original plaintiff and to make necessary changes in the revenue records.

4. In the meanwhile, the defendant filed a petition before the District Collector, praying for cancellation of the mutation effected in the name of the then-owner of the plaint ’B’ schedule property. As directed in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.4428 of 2016, the Deputy Collector(LR), conducted a hearing and directed the Additional Tahsildar to demarcate and to prepare a sketch of the property separately, showing the road as per records and now in existence. Thereafter, the Taluk authorities conducted the survey and filed a report. While so, in the suit, an application was filed as I.A.No.18 of 2024 by the plaintiffs seeking permission to implead additional 3^rd and 4^th defendants. The trial court allowed the impleadment of the additional 3^rd defendant and directed the plaintiff to issue notice to the secretary of Kumbalam Grama Panchayath and notice to the respondents.

5. The counsel for the petitioners submits that though the procedure contemplated under Section 249 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act 1994, to implead the additional 4^th defendant, the Kumbalam Grama Panchayath is complete, impleadment is not done. The 2^nd grievance of the counsel for the petitioners is