M.T.Joseph vs The Poonjar Thekkekara Grama … on 8 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 36087 of 2008(U)


1. M.T.JOSEPH, S/O.THOMAS, MEKKALATH HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE POONJAR THEKKEKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, POONJAR,

3. THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL TALUK,

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.G.ARUN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :08/01/2009

 O R D E R
                  ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
              -----------------------
               W.P.(C).No.36087 OF 2008
             ------------------------
           Dated this the 8th day of January, 2009.

                        JUDGMENT

Petitioner states that from his property covered by

Ext.P1 title deed, he cut certain Teak and Anjali trees,

which according to him was for raising funds to meet the

medical expenses of himself and his ailing wife. It is stated

that immediately thereafter Ext.P3 stop memo was issued

by the Village Officer, restraining the petitioner from

removing the timber from the property. It is stated that

subsequently by Ext.P4 the timber was given to his custody

pending further adjudication of the matter.

2. On receipt of Exts.P3 and P4 the petitioner has filed

Ext.P5 objection to Ext.P3. Petitioner submits that taking

into account his objection, the property was surveyed, but

without notice to him and a sketch was prepared and

copies of which are Exts.P6 and P7. According to him, as

WP(c).No.36087/08 2

Exts.P6 and P7 were erroneous, he filed Ext.P8 application to

the 4th respondent requesting for resurvey of the property

with notice to him. Petitioner submits that while Ext.P8

application is pending consideration of the 4th respondent,

attempt is made by the respondents to dispose of the timber.

It is in view of the aforesaid, this writ petition has been field

praying for a direction to the respondent to survey the

property and thereafter determine the title regarding the

timber.

3. As already stated, though survey has been conducted

and a sketch has been prepared vide Exts.P6 and P7,

according to the petitioner that has been done without notice

to him. Irrespective of the correctness of what he says, fact

remains that disputing the corrections of Exts.P6 and P7, he

has filed Ext.P8 application before the 4th respondent for re-

surveying the property and on that basis to decide the title of

the timber.

4. In my view when a genuine dispute has been raised by

the petitioner about the correctness of Exts.P6 and P7 and has

made an application for resurvey of the property by Ext.P8, the

WP(c).No.36087/08 3

respondent should have conducted resurvey as applied for in

Ext.P8, before proceeding to dispose of the timber.

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the

respondents 2 to 4 to conduct the survey of the property

covered by Ext.P1 and prepare a sketch on that basis. On such

resurvey, if the timber is found to be belonging to the

petitioner, the petitioner will be permitted to dispose of the

timber. On the other hand if the resurvey disclose that the

timber does not belong to the petitioner as stated in Ext.P3

stop memo, the respondents will be free to appropriate the

timber in accordance with law. The survey as above shall be

conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible and at

any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy

of the judgment and with notice to the petitioner.

Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along

with copy of the writ petition before respondents 2 to 4 for

compliance.

vi                              (ANTONY DOMINIC)
                                       JUDGE

WP(c).No.36087/08    4