JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13 th day of January , 202 2 .

The petitioner impugns Ext.P10 notice issued by the Taluk Surveyor under the provisions of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961, saying that the survey proposed thereunder is illegal, unlawful and unconstitutional.

2. Sri.V.Rajendran (Perumbavoor) – learned counsel for the petitioner, explains that, on an earlier occasion, when the Panchayat alleged that his client had encroached into a “Puramboke” area, he had approached the Munsiff’s Court, Pala, by filing O.S.No. 37 of 2011; in which – on the basis of certain directions of this Court in W.P.(C). No. 32962 of 2007 – the parties entered into a compromise, based on the measurement of the properties in Re.Sy.Nos.296 and 554/3 conducted by the Taluk Surveyor. He pointed out that the compromise in question is Ext.P6, in which, Paragraph No.6 records specifically that the Taluk Surveyor had made available to the Panchayat a Report and Field Sketch and that based on the same, they were also convinced that there was no encroachment from the side of his client into any “Puramboke” area. He then submitted that, based on this compromise, O.S.No.37 of 2011 was withdrawn, as is evident from Ext.P7 judgment; but that the Panchayat, instead of acting as per the said compromise, seems to have approached the Taluk Surveyor again seeking survey of the property, which has now culminated in Ext.P10 notice. He argued that, therefore, Ext.P10 is contumacious and is intended to get over Ext.P6 compromise and thus prayed that the same be set aside.

3. In response, Sri.Gerogekutty Mathew – learned Standing Counsel for the 6th respondent – Panchayat, submitted that petitioner is in encroachment of “Puramboke” area in Re.Sy.No.296 and that this is manifest because, even as per his title documents, he has property only in Re.Sy.No.297. He argued that, therefore, when the petitioner is in encroachment in such fashion, he cannot turn around and say that a further survey, as proposed in Ext.P10, cannot be taken forward. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

4. I have evaluated, the afore submissions and have also gone through the various materials available on record, particularly Ext.P6.

5. As rightly stated by Sri.V.Rajendran (Perumbavoor) – learned counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P6 is a compromise between the parties filed before the Competent Civil Court, in which it has been expressly recorded that petitioner has not encroached into any area in Re.Sy.No.296, which is also evident from the Report and Field Sketch of the Taluk Surveyor, after he had surveyed the areas in the said survey number, along with that in Re.Sy.554/3.

6. Obviously, therefore, any further survey could have been ordered by the Panchyat only on the edifice of an allegation that, subsequent to Ext.P6, the petitioner has encroached into areas in Re.Sy.No.296 and not otherwise. However, to a pointed question from this Court, Sri.Georgekutty Mathew was unable to inform this Court whether the Panchayat has any such case; but very pertinently he submitted that his client is presently not in possession of the Report and the Field Sketch of the Taluk Surveyor mentioned therein.

7. Therefore, merely because the Panchayat is not in possession of the Report and Field Sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor, it would not give them justification to seek further survey because, as I have already said above, Ext.P6 is not merely a Memorandum of Compromise between the parties, but it has obtained the stamp of approval of the competent Civil Court, which is evident from the fact that petitioner had withdrawn O.S.No.37 of 2011, based on the same.

8. To paraphrase, unless the Panchayat has a case that petitioner has encroached into the property in Re.Sy.No.296, subsequent to Exts.P6 and P7, I do not think that they are justified in seeking further survey under aegis of the Taluk Surveyor in the manner as has been proposed through Ex.P10, because, otherwise, it can only be co