The absence of a field measurement sketch does not exempt officials from their statutory duty to survey and demarcate property boundaries.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna S, J.

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to measure and demarcate the landed property having an extent of 60.31 Ares in Sy.No.63/1-2 and 14.97 Ares in Sy No.39/183-1 of Chathurangapara Village obtained by him as per Ext P1 sale deed. According to the petitioner, during the rainy season soil erosion happens in the locality of his property and in order to protect his land, construction of a retaining wall is highly necessary. The petitioner approached the 2 nd respondent-Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Udumbanchola, with Ext P4 application to demarcate the boundary of the property. But, the demarcation is delayed without any reason or justification.

2. On 10.9.2024, when this matter was taken up for consideration, this Court suo motu impleaded the District Collector, Idukki as additional 5 th respondent who has filed a counter affidavit dated 19.10.2024. Paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:

“3. The application submitted by the petitioner before the 2 nd respondent for demarcation of the land included in Ext P1 sale deed was forwarded by the 2 nd respondent to the Taluk Surveyor for necessary action. Despite earnest efforts to locate the Field Measurement Sketch of the land, for the purpose of measuring the property of the petitioner, the Taluk Surveyor was unable to locate the Field Measurement Sketch. Consequently, a letter was addressed to the Central Survey Office, Thiruvananthapuram and requested to tender a copy of the Field Measurement Sketch. Copy of the letter sent to the office of the Central Survey Office, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 13.6.2024 is produced herewith and may be marked as Ext R5(a). In response to ExtR5(a) communication, a letter was received by the 2 nd respondent from the office of the Central Survey, in which it was stated that the sketch in question is not available in the Central Survey Office, Thiruvananthapuram. Copy of the letter dated 20.6.2024 is produced herewith and may be marked as Ext R5(b). It is respectfully submitted that the Taluk Surveyor informed that, without the Field Measurement Sketch, demarcation of the land cannot be conducted. Therefore, this respondent cannot acknowledge about the location of the property correctly, as mentioned in Ext P1 sale deed.”

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the statutory obligation of the respondents to survey the land of the petitioner when an application was made under Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 . The respondents cannot escape from their statutory responsibility by stating that the field measurement sketch is unavailable in their offices.

5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that it is not possible for the respondents to demarcate the property without a field measurement sketch, which is unavailable even in the office of Central Survey, Thiruvananthapuram. In a similar situation, in Contempt of Court Case(C) No.840 of 2023 , this Court ordered the parties to approach the competent Civil Court for the purpose of demarcating the property.

6. Ext P1 title deed of the petitioner is not disputed by the respondents. The contention of the 5 th respondent is that the field measurement sketch is unavailable in the Revenue offices including in the Central Survey Office, Thiruvananthapuram, and hence it is not possible for them to identify and demarcate the property of petitioner.

7. It is true that as per the order dated 7.11.2023 in Contempt Case (C) No.840 of 2023, a learned Single Judge of this Cour