BROTHER THOMAS K.K. Vs. THE TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W .P.C. No. 12896 of 2010 is filed challenging Ext.P11 order dated 24/03/2010 issued by the 1st respondent and for a direction to the respondents to complete the proceedings as per Ext.P9 notice issued by the Taluk Surveyor for re -survey of properties as requested by the petitioners.

(2.) THE facts involved in this writ petition would disclose that the petitioners claim to be owners in possession of certain extent of land in Sy.No. 20/1 of Chinnakanal Village. They claimed to have obtained the same as per Exts.P1 to P4 documents. The property lies contiguously. There was an attempt on the part of the officials to trespass into the property. The petitioners filed W.P.C. Nos. 14676 of 2008 and 19593 of 2008 before this Court and directions were issued to issue notice to the petitioners before proceeding further. Petitioners therefore submitted Exts.P5 to P7 applications to the respondent for survey and demarcation of their properties. Since no action was taken, they filed W.P.C. No. 28800/2008 which was disposed by this Court as per judgment dated 03/10/2008 (Ext.P8) directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent conducted survey through the 2nd respondent on 02/01/2009. Though the petitioners were informed that the survey sketch with boundaries will be issued without delay, nothing happened. Petitioners submitted Ext.P10 representation claiming the survey sketch and other particulars. Since no action was taken in the matter, petitioners filed W.P.C. No. 6799 of 2010 which was disposed of by this Court directing the respondents to communicate to the petitioners the outcome of the survey. Thereafter, the petitioners were served with an order dated 24/03/2010 produced as Ext.P11 inter alia stating that petitioners 1 and 3 are actually in possession of property in Sy.No. 495 and the 2nd petitioner is in possession of property in Sy.No. 529.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent inter alia stating that the petitioners are not in possession of any piece of land in Sy.No. 20/1. The land pointed out for survey and demarcation is in Sy.Nos. 495 and 521 of Chinnakkanal village. The survey of the land in question could not be carried out since the land claimed to be in possession of the petitioners had no co -relation with the land covered by documents. The respondents also denied the fact that Sy.Nos. 495 and 529 are re -survey numbers. It is contended that petitioners have no right in respect of any land in Sy.Nos. 495 and 529.