E. LAKSHMIKUTTY Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is a widow and a senior citizen, aged about 80 years. Her husband died leaving behind herself and five children. She claim to have 1.19 acres of land in Survey No.331/3 in Nilambur Village. She assigned certain parcels of land from the above property in favour of her children. The remaining extent is stated to be 12.95 ares, which stands in her name, she claims. Her grievance is that, when the property was measured by her, it was found that she had lost about 32 cents of land. It was alleged that, the 5th respondent who is her neighbour, committed fraud, trespassed into her property and is illegally possessing 32 cents of land with him.

(2.) Petitioner laid Ext.P2 complaint before the second respondent-Sub Collector, Perinthalmanna. Pursuant to the direction of the second respondent, the 4th respondent village officer submitted Ext.P3 report. It was reported by the 4th respondent that, mistakes had occurred in various assignments, measurements of land by the petitioner and the neighbours and necessary action was liable to be taken. Thereafter, alleging that no action was taken thereon, petitioner laid Ext.P4 complaint before the Chief Minister. Ext.P5 is the reply given by the RDO to her in answer to Ext.P2 complaint. The RDO, by his communication Ext.P5, had stated that on measurement of the property by the village officer , as per village records in Survey No.92/331/3, which was the correct survey number of the petitioner's property, the extent was only 1.9120 hectare equivalent to 4.72 1/2 ares. Hence, she was informed that she may apply before the Tahsildar for measuring the properties and for fixation of boundaries.

(3.) It seems that the second respondent RDO dealt with her complaint under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007("Senior Citizens Act" for brevity). By Ext.P7 communication, she was informed that on the basis of the report of the village officer, enquiry was conducted and statements were recorded. It was held that the claim made by the petitioner does not fall within the scope of the Senior Citizens Act. She was advised to move the Civil Court.