D SASHIKUMARI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers :

(2.) THE sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition shows that the petitioner became the absolute owner of the property having an extent of 25 cents (10.12 Ares) comprised in old Survey No. 390/2 of Maranelloor Village of Neyyattinkara Taluk, by virtue of Ext. P1 Partition Deed bearing No. 2153/1973 of Ooruttambalam Sub Registry, wherein the share alloted to the petitioner has been described as the 'C' schedule. According to the petitioner, ever since the execution of the said deed, the petitioner was enjoying the property with absolute ownership, exclusive possession and with clear and marketable title. But, by virtue of the employment of the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner was residing in different parts of the country and the property was being looked after by her brother, the 9th respondent, who owns the adjacent land.

(3.) ON receipt of Ext. P3 report from the 6th respondent, the 3rd respondent forwarded the proceedings to the 5th respondent for further action, along with Ext. P4 covering letter dated 07.02.2009. Since nothing turned out in the positive for quite long time, the petitioner preferred Ext. P5 representation before the first respondent on 12.03.2010 for immediate intervention. Subsequently, the 5th respondent, as per Ext. P6 communication dated 20.08.2010, informed the third respondent that the matter had to be pursued by the Taluk Office, in view of the stipulation under G.O. (MS) 200/10/ Revenue dated 31.05.2010 referring to the on-going Survey Adalath proceedings being pursued through the Taluk Office. Nothing materialized thereafter, which made the petitioner to prefer Ext. P7 representation dated 11.02.2012 before the first respondent, requesting for immediate interference. In the meanwhile, without causing the mistake to be corrected, the property comprised in Re-survey No. 150/9 was put to sale, as per Ext. P9 sale notice dated 04.06.2012, published at the instance of the 7th respondent, which made the petitioner to approach this Court seeking for the reliefs, as aforesaid.