SARA JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these writ petitions the prayers are identical and they are disposed of together.

(2.) In W.P.(C) No.14224/2012 the petitioner claims that her husband was in possession of an extent of 3.333 cents covered by item No.2 in document No.1493/67 which is lying on the western side. Ext.P1 is the copy of the said document. The husband obtained the property from his mother as per Ext.P2 document and the petitioner's husband's family is in possession of the property for more than 87 years. The property is enclosed with well defined boundaries, comprised in old Survey No.1/1/21 in Kumannam Village in Kottayam District. They were away from the locality for a long time, and when they have returned for settling in their native place, they approached the Village Officer for remitting land tax, but it was told that the records were not available in the Village Office. Even though complaints were made, they were not traced out. The husband expired on 11.9.1993. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted various representations to the authorities to rectify the mistake occurred in the resurvey. The representations filed by the petitioner have been produced as Exts.P3(a) to P3(h). Finally Ext.P4 was submitted before the District Collector which was forwarded to the Additional Tahsildar, Kottayam who in turn forwarded the same to the Village Officer. The said fact is clear from Exts.P5(a) and P5(b).

(3.) The writ petition was filed alleging that on 15.6.2012 for the execution of a project, viz. Thazhathangadi Heritage Zone and River Banks Beautification, constructions have been attempted in item 2 property in Ext.P1. The prayer in this writ petition is to direct respondents 5 and 6 not to enter into the property described in Document No.1493/67 and for a direction to the second respondent to take a decision on the basis of Ext.P4 application.