Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 32348
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
MINI JOSHY – Appellant
Versus
TAHSILDAR PEERUMEDU – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 24984 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JOBY CYRIAC, SHRI.KURIAN K JOSE, SMT. DEVIKA T.R.
For the Respondents:SHRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL, SHRI. JAFFAR KHAN, SR. GP
Authorities must ensure timely and correct demarcation of land boundaries despite the absence of original records.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 - Relevant provisions and rules concerning property demarcation - Petitioner seeks enforcement of rights under Article 226 for property boundary delineation due to inaction by authorities. (Paras 1-2)
(B) Judicial precedent - Court defines the procedure to be followed for property resurvey in case of missing records, stressing the alternative solutions must be sought by officials. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner is the owner of a tea plantation with untraceable boundaries; filed an application for demarcation which was ignored for over two months.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner’s application for boundary demarcation must be addressed by the Collector, utilizing existing legal frameworks and records.
Issues: Whether the revenue officers have the duty to conduct property surveys despite missing original charts.
Ratio Decidendi: Courts mandate diligent follow-up to ensure compliance in property boundary disputes, enshrining rights to clear, identifiable landownership.
Result: Writ petition disposed, with direction to carry out the survey within four months.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeking demarcation of property boundaries. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents argue lack of requisite documents for boundary survey. (Para 10) |
| 3. court mandates alternative procedures for property measurement. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Tahsildar Peerumedu to take appropriate action on Ext.P2 application dated 01.05.2024 submitted by the petitioner to point out the boundaries of her property covered in Ext.P1 tax receipt dated 30.04.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent Village Officer, Pullikkanam, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
2. According to the petitioner, she is the owner of 20.24 Ares of property in survey No.727/42-1 of Vagamon Village of Peerumedu Taluk in Idukki district. It is a tea plantation, and its boundaries are not identifiable. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 application dated 01.05.2024 in Form No.10 as provided under Rule 43 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules, 1964 to the 1st respondent Tahsildar, Peerumedu, requesting him to point out the boundaries of the property. However, despite the lapse of more than two months after the submission of Ext.P2, no action has been taken by the 1st respondent. Hence, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.
3. Originally, the writ petition was filed showing the survey number of the property as 724/42-1 in Vagamon Village. However, when the learned Senior Government Pleader pointed out that the survey number of the property in Ext.P1 tax receipt is 727/42-1, the petitioner filed I.A. No.2 of 2024 to correct the survey number of the property as 727/42-1. By the order dated 25.09.2024, the said interlocutory application was allowed by this Court.
4. Along with I.A. No.1 of 2024, the petitioner has produced Ext.P3 document bearing No.811 of 2023 of SRO Peerumedu, by which she claims title to the property mentioned in this writ petition. Along with I.A. No.3 of 2024, the petitioner has produced Exts.P4 and P5 prior title deeds bearing Nos. 758/2018 and
1740/1996 of S.R.O Peerumedu.
5. By the order dated 25.09.2024, the description of the additional 3rd respondent sought to be impleaded in I.A. No.4 of 2024 was corrected suo motu and also, impleaded additional respondents 3 to 5 in the writ petition.
6. By the order dated 23.01.2025 in I.A. No.1 of 2025 filed by the petitioner, additional respondents 6 and 7 were impleaded in the writ petition. The learned Senior Government Pleader entered appearance for the additional respondents 6 and 7. 7. 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 Mini Joshy, on behalf of herself and her son, Sri.Amit Joshy, has filed an application before the Tahsildar, Peermade, for the purpose of demarcating the property included in Survey No.724/42-1 along with Form No.10. Copy of the application dated 01.05.2024 submitted by 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 proceeding with the Survey, the Tahsildar must conduct a preliminary enquiry regarding the nature of the land, location and neighbouring property owners. For conducting Survey, prior notice regarding Survey is to be issued to the neighbouring property owners. After obtaining report from the Village Officer and verification of the document, including hearing, application will be forwarded to the Surveyor. Accordingly, a report was called for from the Village Officer, Vagamo
