High Court Kerala High Court

Mullikulangara Devi Kshethra … vs The District Collector on 5 November, 2009

Kerala High Court
Mullikulangara Devi Kshethra … vs The District Collector on 5 November, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP.No. 1081 of 2009(R)


1. MULLIKULANGARA DEVI KSHETHRA BHARANA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

3. THE TAHSILDAR,TALUK OFFICE,

4. THE DEPUPTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

5. C.K.RADHAKRISHNAN PANICKER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :05/11/2009

 O R D E R
                          S. SIRI JAGAN, J
                ...............................................
                      R.P.No. 1081 of 2009
               .................................................
        Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

The petitioner in the review petition is the 4th respondent in

the writ petition. They are seeking review of my judgment dated

17.7.2009 in the writ petition, in which I have directed as follows:

“Respondents 1 to 3 shall make arrangements to
measure the property with notice to the petitioner as well
as the 4th respondent. If on such measurement, it is
found that the 4th respondent has encroached into the
road poramboke, as agreed by the 4th respondent, they
shall demolish the structure constructed by them in the
road poramboke and give vacant possession of the same
to respondents 1 to 3 without any objection whatsoever.
If any other person is likely to be affected by the
measurement, he/she shall also be given notice. The
above exercise shall be taken up and completed as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

Petitioner’s grievance now is that the measurement has to

be conducted on the basis of the settlement register, whereas

the respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition has measured the

property based on the re-survey records, which is wrong. I am of

opinion that the petitioner cannot dictate as to how the

Government land has to be measured. The authentic records for

the purpose of land in the State of Kerala is the re-survey

records. That being so, the petitioner cannot insist on measuring

R.P.No. 1081 of 2009 -2-

the property on the basis of the settlement register, whereas the

revenue authorities go by resurvey records. Therefore, I do not

find any merit in the review petition and accordingly, the same is

dismissed.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs