SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13556

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
JOSE MANGALY MATHACHAN – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 18841 OF 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
For the Respondents: SMT.ROSE MICHAEL, SRI.C.P.WILSON, SHRI.MICHAEL PAUL CHITTINAPPILLY, SMT.MEERAMOL JIJI

The Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act provides a mechanism for addressing errors in resurvey processes, emphasizing the need for due process and timely redress.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The writ petition is analyzed under Section 13A of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961, which provides a remedy for rectifying resurvey mistakes. Facts of the Case: The petitioners challenged a resurvey sketch alleging mistakes, and had filed a complaint before the Collector (Ext.P4) seeking corrections.

Findings of Court:
The Court classified Ext.P4 as a revision under Section 13A and directed the Collector to consider it.

Issues: The core issue dealt with the alleged errors in the resurvey process as raised by the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the necessity for the Collector to address the complaints effectively and ensure that the petitioners are heard in accordance with the law.

Result: The writ petition is disposed of with directions for the Collector to consider Ext.P4 and pass orders within three months.

Table of Content
1. challenge to resurvey sketch with alleged mistakes. (Para 1)
2. arguments heard from both sides. (Para 2)
3. complaint treated as a revision under law. (Para 3)
4. court's directive for the collector's action. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P5 sketch, essentially contending that a mistake has crept in the resurvey proceedings. The petitioners submit that Ext.P4 is the complaint preferred by them before the District Collector in this regard. The petitioner relies on Ext.P7 communication issued by the Tahsildar(LR), Aluva dated 24.06.2024 in support of their contentions.

2. Heard the rival contentions on both sides, including the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the additional 6th respondent.

3. The complaint raised by the petitioners is essentially with regard to an alleged mistake in the resurvey, for which there is an effective remedy available to the petitioners by way of a revision before the Collector as provided under Section 13A of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 . It is seen that Ext.P4 complaint has already been filed by the petitioners before the District Collector for the purpose of correcting the anomalies, that crept in the resurvey records.

4. In the light of the above, Ext.P4 shall be treated as a revision filed under Section 13A of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 . Therefore, the above writ petition is disposed of as follows:

The 1st respondent shall consider Ext.P4 and pass orders thereon, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, the additional 6th respondent and any other affected parties, within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners and the additional 6th respondent will be free to produce copies of any orders in support of their contention, which shall be duly considered by the 1st respondent while taking a decision as directed above.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top