K C VARGHESE, S/O CHERIA Vs. SURVEY DIRECTOR; RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT; DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND VILLAGE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dispute in this writ petition is regarding therequirement of survey of the property in the possession of thePetitioner. It is seen that in 1969 Patta No. 694 was issued to onePoulose, assigning an extent of 1.63 acres of land in SurveyNo. 45/1/4 of Pananchery Village. In 1981 Petitioner's fatherpurchased the said property and was paying tax also. Subsequently, he executed a settlement deed, settling theproperty in favour of the Petitioner.

(2.) Initially tax was accepted for 1.63 acres, but later tax was accepted only for 1.57 acres on the plea that the remaining land was 'Canal Puramboke'. Petitioner made complaints andfinally resurvey was conducted by the 4th Respondent which waswithout notice to the Petitioner. Later, he was informed by Ext.P6that as per resurvey records there was reduction in the extent ofthe property and that the Petitioner should get the resurveyrecords corrected. Although applications were made by thePetitioner, the resurvey authorities have taken the stand thatalthough the assignment and title deed of the predecessor in the W.P.(C). No. 12600 OF 2007 interest of the Petitioner was for an extent of 1.63 acres of land, what was actually in the possession of the assignee and the Petitioner's father was only 1.57 acres of land. In this writ petition the Petitioner's contention is that only if a proper survey is conducted with notice to the Petitioner, can it be ascertained whether he had only 1.57 acres in his possession or whether the reduction was due to error in the resurvey.

(3.) Although, it is the contention of the Government Pleader that Petitioner has still in his possession, the extent of land he held even prior to the resurvey, I am also of the view that the dispute about the actual extent of the land can be resolved only if a proper survey is conducted with notice to the Petitioner.