Full Judgment
WP(C) NO. 32633 OF 2016 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 8TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 32633 OF 2016 PETITIONER/S: SHAFEEK V. AGED 31 YEARS S/O. ALI MUHAMMED KUNHALAVI, AGED 31 YEARS, VAIDYARAKATH HOUSE, THANUR (PO) MALAPPURAM DT. PIN- 676 302. BY ADVS. SRI.N.J.JOHNSON SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE SUB COLLECTOR TIRUR, TIRUR (PO), MALAPPURAM DT. PIN- 676 101. 2 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR TIRUR TALUK, TIRUR (PO), MALAPPURAM DT. PIN- 676 101. 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER TANUR VILLAGE, TANUR (PO) MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN- 676 302. 4 MOYIKKAL HAMZA MOYIKKAL HOUSE, KATTILANGADI, RAYIRAMANGALAM, TANUR (PO), MALAPPURAM DATED PIN- 676 302. 5 YOUSUF WP(C) NO. 32633 OF 2016 2 CHETTIYAPRAMBIL HOUSE, KATTILANGADI, RAYIRAMANGALAM, TANUR (PO), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN- 676 302. 6 SAIDQ S/O. KUNHIMUHAMMED, VAIDYARAKATH HOUSE, KATTILANGADI, RAYIRAMANGALAM, TANUR (PO), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PIN- 676 302. BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, SRI.HARISH R. MENON SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR, RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 32633 OF 2016 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C.) No. 32633 of 2016 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : “1. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ
order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to pass
appropriate orders under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, asking the respondents 4 to 6 to vacate the government land by demolishing the compound wall constructed by them forthwith and if the land is not vacated depute and officer to enter upon the land and take possession of the same using sufficient force.
2. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ
order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to consider
and pass orders in Ext.P1 representation.
3. Issue any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction as the case may be as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice.” [sic] WP(C) NO. 32633 OF 2016 4
2. When this writ petition came up for consideration,
the learned Government Pleader takes me through the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:
“6. The petitioner and others filed an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur to evict the encroachment in the public way comprised in resurvey No 166/22 of Block 2 Tanur Village. The matter enquired through the Village Officer Tanur and he submitted the report based on the Resurvey Records. Based on the Tanur Village Officer's report the Additional Tahsildar was directed to evict the encroachment in 'puramboke' land.
7. The 1st respondent is not aware of the fact that old survey
records belonging to the land which cause this WP(C) 32633/16 does not have any puramboke land, while gave direction to the 2nd respondent to evict the encroachment in the 'puramboke land'. 1st respondent got the clear idea after getting the report dated 23.11.16 from the Additional Tahsildar, Tirur.
8. It is true that he 5th respondent in WP(C) 32633/16 filed a
petition before Resurvey Deputy Director, Malappuram requesting to rectify the defects recorded in the resurvey No. directed the Resurvey Deputy Director to take a decision in the petition filed by Sri. Yousaf as WPC 39566/15 in its order dated WP(C) NO. 32633 OF 2016 5
23.12.15. That matter is pending with Deputy Survey Director, Malappuram. The petitioner did not produce any documents to prove the fact that there was any Puramboke Land existed before implementing Re-survey. The alleged Resurvey Records are now challenged by one of the land owners before this Hon'ble Court by filing WP(C) 39566/15 which is still pending consideration.
9. It is submitted that there is no Puramboke marked in old
survey sketch and old BTR, as per correlation statement, reported by Additional Tahsildar Tirur there was a pathway of 3 feet in southern portion of this land for the conveyance of local people. This is not mentioned in any of the old records. The alleged pathway became puramboke land in the Revenue Records only after the Resurvey. The same is challenged by one of the property owners and a decision is yet to be taken by the Resurvey Director, Malappuram. Hence it is submitted that, the present issue can be finalised through the process of rectifying the mistakes in Re-survey records by the Survey department within a time frame.
10. A part from above, it is submitted that, all the actions
taken by the 1st respondent as per procedure and abide with law. The 1st respondent has taken necessary action in the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed this the present Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court hiding the fact that the old Survey Records did not mark the land in question as puramboke land. The petitioner did not produce any document for proving the land in Resurvey No.166/22 as
WP(C) NO. 32633 OF 2016 6
puramboke land prior to the implementation of the resurvey Records. Resurvey Record was challenged by one of the land owner before this Hon'ble Court by filing WP(C) 39566/15. In view of above set of facts, it is humbly prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may kindly accept the contentions of this respondent and may dismiss the Writ Petition with costs.”
3. In the light of the above counter affidavit, no further
direction is necessary. Recording the same, this writ petition is closed. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS WP(C) NO. 32633 OF 2016 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32633/2016 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19.5.2015 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.7.2015 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPNDENT.