Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 17253
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
AMITH JOSHY – Appellant
Versus
TAHSILDAR PEERUMEDU – Respondent
WP(C) 25052/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JOBY CYRIAC, SHRI.KURIAN K JOSE, SMT. DEVIKA T.R.
For the Respondents: SRI. JAFFAR KHAN Y.
Court mandates state action for property survey under existing legal provisions despite missing records.
Headnote:The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a mandamus directed to the Tahsildar, Peerumedu for demarcation of property boundaries as per the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules, 1964. The petitioner, claiming ownership of certain land, argues that applications for demarcation have not been acted upon. The court concluded that there is a duty for the respondents to conduct the survey utilizing existing records. The decision mandates action by the State of Kerala within four months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks boundary demarcation through writ. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court reviews respondents' counter with official records. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. respondents argue for inability due to missing survey data. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court insists on conducting survey per existing procedures. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Tahsildar, Peerumedu to take appropriate action in Ext.P2 application submitted by the petitioner in Form No.10 under Rule 43 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules, 1964, for demarcation of the boundaries of his property covered in Ext.P4 sale deed bearing No.810/2023 of SRO Peerumedu, within a time frame fixed by this Court.
2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of 20.24 Ares of property in survey No.727/42 of Vagamon village, Peerumedu Taluk of Idukki District on the strength of Ext.P4 sale deed No.810/2023 of SRO Peerumedu. The said property was part of 1 acre of property owned by one K.V Keshavan by virtue of Patta No.C2.1699/84 issued by the Tahsildar, Peerumedu. The property was later purchased by one Abraham Jacob vide sale deed No.1740/96 of SRO Peerumedu, from whom it was purchased by the petitioner’s vendor, namely Vinod Joseph vide sale deed No.758 of 2018 of SRO Peerumedu. The said property is a tea plantation, and its boundaries are not clear. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application to the 1st respondent for demarcation of the boundaries as per the revenue records. However, no action was taken in Ext.P2 application by the 1st respondent. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court with the present writ petition.
3. By the order dated 07.10.2024 in I.A. No.2 of 2024, additional respondents 3 to 5 and by the order dated 23.01.2025 in I.A. No.3 of 2024, additional respondents 6 and 7 were impleaded in the writ petition.
4. The additional 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit dated 04.11.2024 producing therewith Exts.R4(a) to R4(e) documents. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of that counter affidavit read thus:
“3. Petitioner's mother Smt. Mini Joshy has submitted an application before the Tahsildar, Peermade, for the purpose of demarcating the property belongs to the petitioner included in Survey No.724/42-1 along with Form No.10. Copy of the application dated 01.05.2024 submitted by Smt. Mini Joshy is produced herewith and may be marked as Exhibit - R4(a). In fact, Form 10 application is applicable to lands already surveyed by the Survey authority. However, so far, the Resurvey has not been completed in Vagamon Village.
4. As per the records produced along with the writ petition, the property in question originates from Patta No.C2- 1699/84, allegedly issued by the Tahsildar, Peermade. Before forwarding the application for Survey to the Taluk Surveyor, the jurisdictional Tahsildar must conduct preliminary enquiry regarding the nature, location and neighbouring property owners of the land, to be surveyed. For conducting Survey, prior notice regarding Survey is to be issued to the neighbouring property owners. Accordingly, a report was called for from the Village Officer, Vagamon, and the same was received on 16.08.2024. Сopy of the report of the Village Officer, Vagamon is produced herewith and may be marked as Exhibit - R4(b). The Village Officer reported that the property in question was identified based on the Sale Deed appended to the application of the petitioner and noted the absence of Survey Sketch.
5. However, it is respectfully submitted that there is no records in the office of the 1st respondent, pertains to Patta No.C2-1699/84, except one photocopy of the Patta. Copy of Patta No.C2-1699/84 is produced herewith and may be marked as Exhibit - R4(c). As per the records, the entire files leading to Patta No.C2-1699/84, was taken custody by the Vigilance Department and therefore, the respondent could not locate any Sketch pe
