IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM THURSDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 20347 OF 2024 PETITIONER:

JOSEPH AGED 69 YEARS S/O CHACKO, KURISINKAL HOUSE, PARAMBARMA KARA, MUTTUCHIRA VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 682612 BY ADVS.

SASI M.R. N.P.SILPA KAVYA KRISHNAN S.SAJIT SANAL ARYA VALSAN DHARMYA M.S RESPONDENTS:

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTROATE, KUMILY ROAD KOTTAYAM,, PIN - 686002

2 THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, COLLECTORATE BUILDING, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686002

3 THE TAHSILDAR, FIRST FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION, W GATE RD, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT KERALA, PIN - 686141 OTHER PRESENT:

SR.GP-DEEPA NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

VIJU ABRAHAM,J -----------------------

W.P.(C).No.20347 of 2024 ---------------------------------

Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2024

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the 3^rd respondent to correct the name of the owner of the land covered by Ext.P1 to the name of the petitioner within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

2. It is averred that petitioner is in possession of 29 cents of land in Survey No.1129/1 in Muttuchira Village in Vaikom Taluk, which was purchased as per Ext.P1 deed. After purchasing the said property, the same has been mutated in favour of the petitioner and was remitting property tax till the year 2020, as is evident from Exts.P2 to P4. After the resurvey was conducted, the property was assigned in revenue records in favour of the predecessor in interest of the property. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred Ext.P5 application before the 3^rd respondent for correcting the mistake, which was duly received by the 3^rd respondent, as is evident from Ext.P6. In spite of the matter pending before the 3^rd respondent for almost 2 ½ years no action has been taken on the same by the Tahsildar. Petitioner relying on the judgment in Lakshmi B. v. Suku (2024 (1) KHC 380) would submit that when there is a dispute the title deed would prevailed over all the revenue records, wherein paragraph 16 of the judgment reads as follows:

“16. In the instant case, the Trial Court given emphasis to the title deed of the plaintiffs and the defendants while holding that D plot in Ext.C1(a) is also property covered by Ext.Al title deed of the plaintiffs. When the evidence was reappreciated by the first Appellate Court, the first Appellate Court approached the case with reference to the location of the property on the basis of resurvey numbers ignoring title deed. When a suit for recovery of possession has been filed on the strength of title or in a suit for title declaration, title would prevail over revenue records and resurvey numbers. To put it differently, tax receipts, survey plan, resurvey plan or revenue records do not confer title to anybody, when there is title deed in relation to the said property in favour of the title holder. Therefore, in suits involving title dispute, title would prevail over revenue records, if it is found on measurement that the property covered by the title deed is identified properly justifying the declaration of title and recovery of possession on the strength of title. The said reliefs never be denied merely on the ground that in the revenue records/resurvey records, the said portion of the property is not shown as the property of the plaintiffs.”

(underline supplied)

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also.

4. If any mistake has crept in during resurvey, the authorities are bound to correct the same for which the petitioner has already preferred Ext.P5 application in this regard. It is also to be noted that the Government has already issued directions as per GO(MS).No.303/2017/Revenue dated 26.08.2017 detailing the procedures to be followed for rectifying the mistakes in the resurvey, wherein Tahsildar(LR) was authorised to look