IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1561 of 2010(U)
1. SMT.ROSILY, W/O.SEBASTIAN, AGED 43 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI,
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, RAJAKKAD VILLAGE,
4. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,
5. THE SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, RAJAKKAD,
6. MR.PHILIP, S/O.ESTHAPPAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.A.J.JOSE(AEDAIODI)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :10/03/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 1561 of 2010-U
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a permanent resident of Josegiri, in Rajakkad
Village, Udumbanchola Taluk, Idukki District. She is the owner and in
possession of one acre of land comprised in Sy. No.3/10 of Rajakkad
Village having R.S.No.8/10 in Udumbanchola Taluk of Idukki District. The
petitioner applied for grant of patta in respect of the property, in the
prescribed form after complying with all the formalities. The patta was
granted erroneously, according to the petitioner, in the name of the 6th
respondent, showing the survey and boundaries of the petitioner as that of
the 6th respondent. Ext.P1 is the copy of the form of patta. This resulted in
the petitioner filing various complaints before the authorities and finally
Ext.P2 complaint was submitted before the District Collector. The same is
numbered as N.DIS.71/2000/C3 and has been forwarded to the Tahsildar,
Udumbanchola.
2. Based on verification and local inspection, the Village Officer has
submitted a report as per Ext.P3. Again, the 4th respondent Tahsildar
directed the 5th respondent to prepare the sketch of the properties of the
wpc1561 /2010 2
petitioner, as per Ext.P4. It is is stated the 5th respondent has not so far
identified, demarcated and fixed the boundaries of the properties with notice
to the petitioner. Finally, the petitioner submitted a written complaint
before the District Collector’s Grievances Redressal Cell on 7.8.2007 which
was numbered as 697. This is evident from Ext.P5 receipt. Under the
Right to Information Act, the petitioner filed an application as Ext.P6 on
18.5.2009, seeking various information. Ext.P7 is the reply given in the
matter. A further request was made as per Ext.P8, to which Ext.P9 reply has
been received. By Ext.P9 it was informed that the complaint of the
petitioner and the other records have been forwarded to Rajakumari Land
Assignment Officer for appropriate action and if the petitioner has any
objection to his, she can file an appeal before the Appellate Authority &
Tahsildar, Udumbanchola. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P10
before the said authority. She was given a reply by the 4th respondent
stating that her grievance cannot be redressed under the Right to
Information Act. Finally, by Ext.P12 she was informed by the
Superintendent, Survey and Land Records (L.A.) to appear before the said
officer along with the documents, on 16.11.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner
attended the office of the 5th respondent in compliance of the direction
contained in Ext.P12.
wpc1561 /2010 3
3. What is sought for by the petitioner is a direction to correct the
error in the matter. Even though notice has been served, no counter
affidavit has been filed by the 6th respondent also.
4. Therefore, there will be a direction to the fifth respondent to
complete the enquiry as contemplated in Ext.P12, with notice to the
petitioner and the 6th respondent, if the same has not been completed so far,
and file an appropriate report before the competent authority in the matter.
Orders shall be passed by the second respondent after hearing the petitioner
and the 6th respondent, within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment, after completing due enquiry in the
matter.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/