The judgment underscores the necessity of adhering to natural justice principles in administrative proceedings, especially concerning property disputes.

J U D G M E N T

This writ petition ultimately visualises a feud between close relatives. This Court is called upon to decide the dispute between the parties, since the attempt for mediation was unsuccessful.

2. The petitioner’s father – late Jacob Ouseph, and Ouseph Joseph @ P.J.Joseph – the 5^th respondent herein, are brothers. According to the petitioner herein, the mother of Jacob and Joseph, Anna, had an extent of 2.11 Acres of Patta land in Survey No.1/1 of Kalkoonthal Village. True, the Patta is specifically with reference to the four boundaries, and on a perusal of the Patta, it would appear that the property extending to 2.11 Acres is a consolidated piece of property. After the death of the afore- referred Anna, her legal heirs, including Jacob, executed Ext.R5(b) release deed in favour of Joseph, the 5^th respondent herein. It may also be noticed that the boundaries of the property in Ext.R5(b) are the same as shown in the Patta. Therefore, according to the petitioner, it is the property covered in the Patta that was released pursuant to Ext.R5(b) in favour of Joseph. According to the 5^th respondent, the afore extent of 2.11 Acres of land was lying separately. He raised a contention to the effect that an extent of

1.76 Acres was lying in Resurvey No.126/5, and another extent of 35 cents was lying elsewhere, in a different survey number – Resurvey No.142/6. Subsequently, Joseph divided the property devolved upon him as above among his wife and son, who are respondents 4 and 6, respectively.

3. Subsequently, the 4^th respondent herein instituted a suit before the Civil Court seeking a declaration to the effect that the properties covered in Schedules I and II of the plaint were in her title and possession. Detailed reference was also made to properties covered in Schedules I, II, and III. The defendant in the said suit, who is the late father of the petitioner, filed a written statement before the Civil Court, specifically contending that the plaintiff i. e, 4^th respondent herein, was never in possession of the properties described as item Nos.II and III of the schedules. It was also pointed out that the afore properties were actually non- patta lands, which he had obtained on the basis of a totally different deed executed by his mother, and on that basis, he was in possession of the said properties.

4. Later, an application was filed before the survey authorities by respondents 4 to 6 seeking to correct the mistakes in the resurvey proceedings noticed as above. Subsequently, a writ petition was also filed by the afore respondents as W.P.(C) No.20112 of 2019, and by Ext.P6 judgment dated 23.07.2019, this Court directed the 1^st respondent therein to take a decision on the application filed “after notice to the petitioners and all affected persons”. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of the directions issued by this Court, resurvey proceedings were carried out, leading to Ext.P7, as per which, the properties were shown to be lying in two separate blocks. He further laments that the petitioner came to know about all the afore only when an interlocutory application was filed before the Civil Court (Ext.P4), seeking for a direction to the survey authorities to produce the resurvey proceedings noticed as above. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has rushed to this Court through the captioned writ petition, seeking to challenge Ext.P7.

5. I have heard Sri.Madhu Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Mathew John, the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent, as well as Sri.N.B.Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

6. Sri.Madhu Radhakrishnan, would contend that on a perusal