Loading...

T.G.Mathews vs State Of Kerala on 26 June, 2009

Kerala High Court
T.G.Mathews vs State Of Kerala on 26 June, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 17856 of 2009(B)


1. T.G.MATHEWS, NEDUVAMPIRATH HOUSE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

4. DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT,

5. THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :26/06/2009

 O R D E R
                                 V.GIRI, J.

            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                   W.P. (C) No. 17856 OF 2009
            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009

                             J U D G M E N T

Petitioner purchased 5 Acres and 45 cents in Vallikode

Kottayam village in Court auction. The property was delivered

over. He submitted an application for mutation. The application

was rejected by the 6th respondent. But on appeal the petitioner’s

claim was upheld by the 3rd respondent as per Ext.P2. The 3rd

respondent directed the 5th respondent to take steps to see that

the land covered by the ‘delivery kycheet’ and included in the

thandaper account of the person in whose name the property stood

is transferred on registry in favour of the petitioners. Ext. P2 was

not implemented and hence the petitioner moved this court vide

Writ petition No.2567/09. This court by Ext.P3 judgment directed

the 5th respondent to locate and identify the property and effect the

transfer of registry thereafter. The property was then identified as

evidenced by Ext.P4. But thereafter some persons appeared

before the second respondent, challenging the identification of the

property. Taking note of this, second respondent directed a

complete survey and demarcation of the property held by

Sri. E.K. Sivaraman and such demarcation will take in the property

WPC.No. 17856 OF 2009
: 2 :

covered by Ext.P1 ‘kaicheet’. In Ext.P5 the Commissioner of

Land Revenue further directed the Revenue Divisional Officer

to verify the documents and also ascertain actual physical

possession of the property before passing a fresh order in the

matter of effecting mutation as requested by the petitioner.

The writ petition has been filed alleging delay in the

implementation of Ext.P5.

2. I heard learned Government Pleader also. Since

directions have been issued by the Commissioner with regard

to the Survey and demarcation of the property owned by

Sri.E.K. Sivaraman, there is no justification for the delay in

implementation of Ext.P7.

In the result, Writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd

respondent to take further steps pursuant to Ext.P5 and see

that the survey and demarcation as directed is completed

within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

(V.GIRI, JUDGE)

jma

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information