LISSY PAULOSE, W/O.PAULOSE Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is stated as the owner of the property in question having obtained the same by virtue of Ext.P2 to Exts.P4 conveyances. The grievance of the petitioner appears to be that, when the petitioner took necessary steps to effect mutation of the property, by approaching the concerned authorities, it was not acceded to, for want of fixation of boundaries. The petitioner filed applications before the second respondent for causing the property to be measured out and the prayer in the writ petition is to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to consider Exts.P6 to P8 petitions to cause the measurement of the property and to have the same mutated by effecting the necessary entries in the revenue records enabling the petitioner to satisfy the tax as well, within a reasonable time.

(2.) ON going through the pleadings and proceedings, it is seen that the petitioner herself has stated in the writ petition that, pursuant to the application preferred by the petitioner before the second respondent, the Taluk Surveyor had turned up to measure the properties and to fix the boundaries accordingly. But the same was obstructed by the respondents 5 and 6, who according to the petitioner, do not have any right or interest over the property in question. It is in the said circumstances, that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to be given to the respondents 1 to 4 to cause consideration of Exts.P6 to P8 petitions preferred by the petitioner for measuring out the property and for further steps.

(3.) AFTER hearing, this Court prima facie is of the view that no default or lapse can be attributed to the departmental authorities, in so far as it is the admitted case of the petitioner, that pursuant to the filing of the application, the second respondent had turned up to effect the measurement, which however was obstructed by respondents 5 and 6, thus involving a Civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondents 5 and 6 with respect to the rights and interests over the boundary. If there is any boundary dispute between the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6, the proper forum to have it dealt with, is the Civil Court and the matter has to be adjudicated on the basis of the specific pleadings and the evidence to be adduced. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents 5 and 6 do not have any right over the property covered by Exts.P2 to P4 and that the grievance of the petitioner has already been brought to the notice of the District Collector as well, by filing Ext.P8, the receipt of which has been endorsed by the concerned authority on the said proceeding on 14.01.2013.