The court affirmed that obtaining an attested survey sketch is permissible even with ongoing resurvey proceedings if prior clearances are obtained.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P19 whereby the request made by the petitioner for counter sign/attestation of the survey sketch has been declined for the reason that survey proceedings are going on in respect of the property comprised in resurvey no.172 of Kodiyathur Village.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner is the Managing Partner of a partnership firm engaged in quarrying operations. Petitioner, for the purpose of conducting quarrying operations, leased 12 acres of land in survey no.172 of Kodiyathur Village, Pannikode Desom of Kozhikode Taluk, Kozhikode District. The Revenue authorities objected the conduct of quarrying operations and refused to issue survey sketch of the property stating that a certain portion of the property in survey no.172 form part of excess land surrendered to the Government. Petitioner thereupon approached this Court by filing W.P(C).No.3726 of 2014 which was disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to issue survey sketch to the petitioner within a period of four months. In compliance with the direction in Ext.P1 judgment, Ext.P2 order was issued which contained details of the survey conducted and enclosing with the survey sketch. Following Ext.P2, quarrying lease was obtained and quarrying is being conducted till date by complying with all statutory requirements and with all requisite clearances. Petitioner thereafter decided to expand quarrying operations into properties adjacent to the existing quarry and obtained necessary consent from the property owners to conduct quarrying operations in 80.94 Ares of land in survey no.172/1556 and 6.61 acres of land contained in survey no.172/1555 and survey no.172/1556 of Kodiyathur Village. By Exts.P3 and P3(a) necessary consent deeds were also executed. In order to submit an application before the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (in short, “SEIAA‟) the petitioner requirs a survey sketch of the newly acquired property and thereupon Ext.P4 application was submitted before the Tahsildar. Ext.P5 is the possession certificate issued for 80 Ares 94 sq.metres in resurvey no.172 obtained for the purpose of presenting before SEIAA and Ext.P6 is the possession certificate issued. 3rd respondent Tahsildar thereafter forwarded Ext.P4 application to the 7th respondent Village Officer for a report as per Ext.P7. In reply to Ext.P7 letter, Ext.P8 report was sent by the 7th respondent Village Officer wherein it is reported that the property is free from Court proceedings and bank attachments, that it has not been set apart by the Government for any purpose, that it is not garden land and that it is not assigned to Scheduled Tribes and also that it is not an assigned land. Thereafter 3rd respondent Tahsildar as per Ext.P9, forwarded Ext.P8 report of the 7th respondent Village officer to the 6th respondent Taluk Surveyor, Kozhikode, along with survey sketch No.548/2020 submitted by the Village officer, which was followed by Ext.P9(a) letter also. The 6th respondent Taluk Surveyor verified the report and sketch and approved the same and submitted a report to the Tahsildar as per Ext.P10. It is submitted that in Ext.P10 report, the Taluk Surveyor has stated that the measurements in the survey sketch are correct. It is further stated in Ext.P10 report that though resurvey proceedings are going on under the leadership of the Sub-Collector in re-survey no.172 for demarcating excess Government land, in the light of the Village Officer‟s report that the land is not included in Government excess land, the file could be processed further. Even after receipt of Ext.P10, 3rd respondent Tahsildar called for a further clarification as per Ext.P11 as to whether the property proposed to be quarried by the petitioner is included in the Government excess land and that by Ext.P12 it is reported that whether there is any Government excess land in the petitioner’s p