IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22644 of 2009(A)
1. ISSOLA DE COCO HOLIDAYING PVT.LTD,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. TAHSILDAR,
... Respondent
2. SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY AND RECORDS(RE-
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
4. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, VIGILANCE,
For Petitioner :SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :23/03/2010
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.22644 of 2009
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein purchased various items of land in
Re-Survey No.377/3 in Block No.19 of Thirupuram Village of an
extent of 1.7617 hectors.
2. According to the petitioner, after purchase he was
paying the tax and mutation has been effected in favour of him.
Even though a possession certificate and location sketch in
favour of the said property for sanctioning a building plan from
the panchayat was applied for, no action was taken by 2nd and 3rd
respondents in the matter. The 3rd respondent refused to receive
the land tax in the year 2008-09. He approached this court by
filing W.P.(C)No.10114/2009 which was disposed of directing the
third respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders within
a period of six weeks. Even though the direction was issued by
this Court, the said appeal was not considered and the petitioner
herein had filed Cont.Case No.587 of 2009, and pending the
same, order was passed rejecting his representation. Ultimately
by Ext.P9, the Village Officer informed that a decision can be
taken only after measuring the extent of the puramboke.
W.P.(C)No.22644 of 2009
2
Accordingly, application for issuance of possession certificate
and location certificate was rejected. In the counter affidavit
filed by the first respondent it is pointed out in paragraph ‘3’ as
follows:-
“As per revenue records Mohammed Farooq has
got only 09.90 Ares of land in Resurvey.377/3 of Block
No.19. But after mutation as per PV.321/97 of Special
Tahsildar LR.Neyyattinkara the area increased to 1.76.17
Hectres of land in Resurvey No.377/3. But no Form No.7
was received in the Village Office with this regard.
Moreover, there is no entry in F.M.Book about the
alteration in area. As per Rule 22(3) of Kerala Survey
and Boundaries Act when Government lands are
transferred from assessed to unassessed and vice versa a
fresh Sub Division in a survey field of subdivision may be
created. In this case it is not done so. Here a portion of
Puramboke land is added to an existing Resurvey number
and it is illegal. So the matter was reported to the
Vigilance Deputy Collector (Revenue). South Zone vide
reference No.06-17162/07 dated 6.8.2008 of this office
and the same is pending before the Vigilance Deputy
Collector Vide File No.RVC/TV/85/05.”
3. Therefore what is contented by the respondent is that
a portion of the property in the ownership and possession of the
petitioner is part of puramboke and therefore possession
W.P.(C)No.22644 of 2009
3
certificate and location sketch cannot be issued. Even though it
is mentioned Vigilance Enquiry is pending, the same will not
prevent the respondent from conducting a survey for identifying
the puramboke, if puramboke land is mixed up with the
registered holding.
4. Therefore there will be a direction to the first
respondent to consider the application, take all steps to measure
out the property claimed by the petitioner to find out whether
any puramboke land is mixed up and is in the possession of the
petitioner. He will arrange the survey to be done through the 2nd
respondent, after hearing the petitioner. Appropriate decision
will be taken within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE
skj