GIRISH BABU Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR EMAKULAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed as a Public Interest Litigation by the petitioner claiming to be a pro bono publico seeking following reliefs:

(2.) The contesting respondents are 3rd and 4th respondents. The 3rd respondent is the owner of the property and the 4th respondent is the Survey Department who deals with the measurement of the lands in question. The statement of 4th respondent indicates, out of 183.36.acres of land claimed by the University as their property, the survey records indicate the extent as 178.54 acres only. However, after measurement with the assistance of modern equipment, when the actual area in possession of CUSAT came to be measured it was 182.43 acres. Therefore, the only difference is less than 1% of the total area and this difference is within the allowable limits. According to the State Attorney if another survey is conducted, this missing area also may be traced.

(3.) We also find that there was acquisition of land for formation of road within the campus of the University and this would also indicate the measurement being less than the claimed measurement of the University. However, the very exercise of survey was taken up by the 4th respondent Department on the application of CUSAT indicating their desire not only for survey of the entire campus and also expressing their desire to put up a compound wall. In that view of the matter, when we go through the statement of the 3rd respondent Registrar of CUSAT, we find that necessary exercise and plan of action is indicated so far as their property is concerned. They have given all the details and more or less the stand of the University and the State is one and the same so far as the actual measurement and there is some discrepancy in the total measurement which is less than 1% of the total area.