J U D G M E N T

S. Manikumar, C. J.

Mr. Udaya Varma, the 2nd respondent herein, has preferred complaint No. 881 of 2014 before the Kerala Lok Ayukta, for the following reliefs:- “(i) There may be a finding that there is inordinate delay in completing the survey and demarcation of the property as per the direction of the Director of Survey;

(ii) The Respondents may be directed to complete the survey as proposed in Notice No. Sy H3-1842/06 dated

26.01.2006 (Exhibit P-3) within a months time;

(iii) There may be a finding that the survey personnel has committed gross negligence in finding that there is Puramboke land of 2 ½ cents of land in Survey No.

2746 and 2746 (1);

(iv) The Respondents may be directed to effect mutation in respect of the entire property of the Complainant and his mother as per the documents.”

2. Before the Lok Ayukta, respondents have filed a statement, which is reproduced:- “The complainant’s father late Sreenivansan was the owner of 22 cents (8.90 Ares) of property in old survey No. 2746 and in 2746(1) of Kilimanoor village. The resurvey records finalised and implemented in Kilimanoor village in 2004. As per the resurvey records the above land included in resurvey number 1/1, Block 30 of Kilimanoor village. The extent of the land as per the resurvey records is 7.90 Ares and the remaining land under his possession (1.00 are) is the part of the ‘puramboke vazhi’ in resurvey record marked as in Block Number 29 and resurvey Number 160/7. Even though the total extent of the land as per existing resurvey records is 7.90 ares, complainant’ father divided 8.90 ares among his three sons and his wife. Complainant's brothers Udaya Chandran and Udaya kumar got 2.43 ares each and the complainant and his mother got 02.02 ares each. The complainant argues that his father filed application before the resurvey authority to refix the puramboke land and no action was taken on it. Aggrieved by this the complainant filed this complaint before the honourable LokAyukta.

Parawise Remarks

1. No remarks 2. No remarks

3. In 2004 resurvey records finalised and implemented in Kilimanoor village. As per the resurvey records the extent of the registered land under their possession included in resurvey number 1/1 in Block number 30 and the area is 7.90 ares land tax was paid for the extent of 7.90 ares in

2004-2005.

4. No remarks 5. No remarks 6. No remarks

7. Eventhough the extent of the land as per resurvey records which is followed as the record of land from 2004 onwards is 7.90 ares the complainant’s father executed documents for the extent of 8.90 ares. So there is a shortage of 1.00 ares of land in village records. All others except the complainant effected mutation. The complainant got 2.02 ares of land as per document. But the extent of the property remains in village records as per thandaper number 1 in Block 30 is

01.02 ares

8. No remarks 9. No remarks

10. As per G.O(MS) 200/10 Government had stopped ‘survey Adalath' works through Re-survey superintendent offices and the power is transferred to Additional Tahsildar for rectifying the mistakes in resurvey records with effect from 31/05/2010. The complainant filed petition before the Director of survey on 20/01/2006 and it is also noticed that the complainant has not filed any petition before the Additional Tahsildar for rectifying the mistakes with valid supporting documents till date.”

3. After considering the pleadings, Lok Ayukta, by order dated

10.11.2017 in complaint No. 881 of 2014, ordered thus:- “The Tahsildar (LR), Chirayinkeezhu is present. He submits that the property comprised in Block No. 29 and re- survey 160/17 is road Puramboke and that therefore the complainant is not entitled to have it mutated in his name. The Tahsildar is asked as to whether consequent on re-survey, registered holding will change its character and can be converted as Puramboke, when he has admitted that as per the old survey the said portion was part of registered holding of the complainant. His answer is in th