KOCHURANI Vs. A.V.JOY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the communication Exhibit P11 issued by the District Survey Superintendent. Therein the view taken is that the appeal against the proceedings issued under the torrence survey cannot be considered by the District Survey Superintendent and under Rule 129 of the Survey and Boundaries Rules, appeal will have to be considered by the Director of Survey or any person authorised by the said Director and therefore the petitioner is directed to approach him.

(2.) THE petitioner purchased a property as per Exhibit P1 document. The first respondent is the adjoining owner of the property in Sy.No.93/3. The torrence plan has been produced before the Angamaly Sub Registry Office. The petitioner point out in paragraph No.2 that without giving a notice, measurements have been taken. In respect of the said aspect, the petitioner filed a petition before the 3rd respondent as per Exhibit P4. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted and he came to know of civil suit O.S.No.545/08 pending against the 1st respondent before the Munsiff's Court, Aluva. The petitioner was given a communication as per Exhibit P5 thereafter to the effect that only after getting permission from the Court, the matter can be proceeded with and the petitioner therefore filed I.A.No.1450/11 before the Munsiff Court for withdrawal of the same. This was permitted by the Munsiff Court as evident from Exhibit P6 order and the petitioner filed a further representation before the Deputy Director of Survey as per Exhibit P7.

(3.) THE learned Government Pleader on getting instructions submitted that as far as the complaint in question is concerned, the same cannot be considered by the District Survey Superintendent and therefore Exhibit P11 communication was issued, rightly.