Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE12H DAY OF JUNE201422ND JYAISHTA, 1936 WA.No. 109 of 2014 () IN OP.15375/2003 ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
IN OP153752003 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED05-08-2004 AGAINST THE ORDER
IN RP9812012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED2006-2013 APPELLANT(S): ------------------------ K.V.XAVIER, S/O. VARGHESE, KADAVINGAL HOUSE, KUMBALANGI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. LIJOY P.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIATE, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULKAM.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.
4. THE TAHASILDAR, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM.
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICIER, KUMBALANGI, ERNAKULAM.
6. THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER, SETTLEMENT OFFICE, INAM LANDS, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.R. SYAMKUMAR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1206-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA.No. 109 of 2014 () IN OP.15375/2003 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ----------------------------------- ADDITIONAL ANNEXURE4- TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE AFFIXED ON THE RESIDENCE OF THE APPELLANT . ADDITIONAL ANNEXURE5- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED2502.2003 GIVEN BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. KOTTAYAM TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- NIL. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE sou. K. M. JOSEPH & A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JJ -------------------------------------------------------------------- C.M.Appl. No.53 of 2014 and C.M.Appl. 208 of 2014 in W.A. No. 109 OF2014and W.A. No. 109 OF2014-------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2014
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph, J C.M.A. Appl. No.53/14 and C.M.Appln.208/14. Delay is sought to be explained by pointing out that review was filed as R.P.981 of 2012 which was disposed of in 20.6.2013. We find that the delay in filing the R.P was condoned. The R.P was disposed of on 20.6.2013. In the affidavit dated 24.2.2013, it is also stated that he had filed I.A.704 of 2013 in the R.P. for direction and that was dismissed on 3.9.2013. The Writ Appeal is filed on 28.10.2013. In such circumstances, we take a liberal view and after hearing learned Government Pleader, the delay is condoned. W.A. No. 109 OF2014 We also took up the appeal itself. The writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs: "i) A writ of mandamus to the respondents 2,3 and W.A.109/14 2 4 to survey the property of the petitioner so as to enable the 3rd and 6th respondents to issue patta to the petitioner. ii) a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P7 and to quash the original of the same. iii) writ of mandamus to the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action against the 4th respondent since he failed to comply with the direction to Ext.P8, thereby causing undue hardship and inconvenience to the petitioner. iv) writ of mandamus to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 as expeditiously as possible. v) writ of mandamus to the 6th respondent to issue patta to the petitioner expeditiously. vi) to grant such other reliefs prayed for from time to time including cost of these proceedings." 2. The court originally took note of the pendency of the civil suit with his immediate neighbour and disposed of the original petition as follows : "Heard. Having regard to the facts of the case, the 4th respondent shall survey the property of the petitioner and give the sketch to the 6th respondent. But the corresponding modification, if any, in the survey records shall be made, in accordance with law, only after the dispute between the petitioner and his neighbour in O.S.433/01 is settled. In other words, it is clarified that the survey done by the 4th respondent as directed by this Court will not in any way affect the dispute in the above suit between the parties and the civil court will be absolutely free to take an independent decision. Needless to say, the parties will be governed by the decision of the civil court and not by the survey conducted by the 4th respondent. While W.A.109/14 3 surveying the property, the defendants in the suit shall be issued with notice and they shall be furnished with a copy of the sketch prepared on the basis of the survey. The 4th respondent shall complete the survey as directed above, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment." 3. Thereafter, the appellant filed review petition. It is pointed out that the suit filed by the petitioner was only in respect of 2.75 cents and that, it was for injunction. However, the suit was dismissed for default and restoration petition was also dismissed and the matter has become final. Therefore, the learned single Judge disposed of the review petition as follows : "5. In the above circumstances, this court finds that nothing requires to be reviewed in this Review Petition, invoking the power and jurisdiction, but for observing that the application of the petitioner for issuance of 'Patta' as prayed for in the original Petition, is to be considered and appropriate orders are to be passed, based on the outcome of the survey as aforesaid. The review Petition is disposed of. " Feeling aggrieved, the appeal is filed.
4. In fact, we notice that the Writ Petition was based on his right obtained under Ext.P1. No doubt, it is pointed out, by learned counsel for the appellant that he has received notice in respect of patta of Inam Land. The review appears to be premised on the property having an extent of 48 cents.
5. Learned Government Pleader in fact would point out that W.A.109/14 4 after the judgment in review, notice was issued on 15.01.2014 proposing a survey on 24.1.2014, but the appellant refused to accept the notice and did not co-operate with the survey.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant will co-operate with the survey. We record the said submission.
7. Learned Government Pleader would submit that proceedings will be completed at the earliest.
8. We record the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant that he will co-operate with the survey and the submission made by learned Government Pleader that proceedings will be completed at the earliest, in accordance with law. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. Sd/- K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. Sou. // True copy // P.A. to Judge.