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
