V.T.Kamarudheen vs The Tahsildar on 19 August, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 2280 of 2008(U)


1. V.T.KAMARUDHEEN,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. V.T. FAYYAZ,

                        Vs



1. THE TAHSILDAR, PONNANI.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

3. THE STATE OF KERALA,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :19/08/2009

 O R D E R
                                S. Siri Jagan, J.
                =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                         W. P (C) No. 2280 of 2008
                =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                   Dated this, the 19th August, 2009.

                               J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in

allegedly encroaching into the property of the petitioners covered by

Exts.P1 and P2 documents. They seek the following reliefs in this writ

petition:

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the 1st respondent not to disturb
the possession of the petitioners over any part of their properties
lying within their well-demarcated compound wall, covered by Ext.
P1 and P2 deeds;

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to remove the
notice board forcibly put up by him inside the petitioners’ property
depicting that that portion of the property is Government land.

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the respondents to pass orders on
the petitioners’ P7 and P9 applications for assignment of land.”

2. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, in

paragraph 6, it is stated thus:

“6. The revenue authorities had conducted the site
inspection for demarcating the survey boundary of Government
land in RS No.292 only. The authorities had no intention
whatsoever to defy the Government Order dated 6-9-1996.
Moreover, the petitioner’s possession on whatever land with him
was not at all disturbed by the authorities. The petitioner’s
request for assigning land is being processed as per the existing
rules. The revenue authorities had only shown the survey
boundaries of the Government land possessed by the Jail
Department in Rs.No. 292/IB. The revenue department has not
put up any board in the land possessed by the Jail Department.
No coercive steps were initiated against the petitioner in this
regard also. In short the entire survey work was conducted in RS
No. 292 and the petitioner have no document at their disposal to
substantiate their claim over the land in R.S.No. 292. The survey
team of Revenue officials headed by the Additional Tahsildar,
Ponnani and the officials of the Jail Department were present in
the site for the demarcation of the land in question. No police

W.P.C. No. 2280/08 -: 2 :-

force was called for the inspection of the land. The survey team
might have entered into the property of the petitioner for fixing
the survey lines, and calling this act as intrusion is not acceptable
at all. The act of the revenue officials was neither intended to
disturb the possession of the petitioner nor for disrespecting any
Government Order in this regard. The revenue officials were
simply discharging their duties following a written request from
the Jail Superintendent, Ponnani Sub jail, seeking the
demarcation of the land in the possession of jail department. It is
true that following the application of the petitioner, the revenue
department is looking into the matter of assignment. But it is to
be noted that the Government Order does not suggest to assign
the land to the petitioner. Instead, the order seeks to examine the
scope for assigning the land adhering all the statutory formalities.
The District Collector, Malappuram vide letter No.
L.Dis/36576/2003/B2 dated 23-9-03 has made it clear that the
Government by virtue of the order No. (RT) 3164/1996/RD dated
6-9-2006 has ordered only to consider the application of the
petitioner for the assignment of the land in favour of him, and
being things as such all statutory formalities should be observed in
processing such application.”

In view of the above averments to the effect that they have no

intention to encroach into or disturb possession of the properties of

the petitioners covered by Exts.P1 and P2 documents, recording the

above averments in the counter affidavit, this writ petition is closed.

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

Tds/

[True copy]

P.S to Judge.