SHINY JOSEPH Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is averred that the petitioner is the owner and in possession of various extent of land, including 16.5 cents lying in old Sy.No.40/14, which is now lying in Re.Sy.No.386/18, in Anakkara Village, Udumbanchola Taluk, Idukki District. The grievance of the petitioner is that mutation in respect of that property has not been effected by the 1st respondent on the purported ground that there is some difference in the old survey number shown in the present BTR therein and the title deeds. That the petitioner has submitted application before the 1st respondent for correction and it was turned down saying that correction can be effected only if there is direction from the superior authority. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner could gather from the official concerned that he may have to approach the Land Tribunal concerned, who issued purchase certificate as per Ext.P-2 so as to correct the survey number as shown therein and reference in that regard is made in Ext.P-4. The petitioner had then attempted to approach the Land Tribunal and the Land Tribunal informed as per Ext.P-5 that since it had already granted Ext.P-2 certificate No.25/1974 issued as early as on 22.1.1975 it has become functuous officio and if the petitioner has any grievance regarding the wrong mentioning of survey number, it is for him to approach the appellate authority, who has to entertain the appeal as per the decision of the Land Tribunal. This aspect is mentioned in Ext.P-5. Earlier, the 1 st respondent- Tahsildar, Udumbanchola, who had made a detailed examination of various aspects of the matter as found in para 2 of Ext.P-3 dated 15.7.2017 that as per the present BTR, survey number of the present property is seen as 14/1, whereas the title deeds of the said property as per Ext.P-1 and Ext.P-2 purchase certificate, etc., have shown the survey Number as 40/14. It is also stated by the 1 st respondent in para 2 of Ext.P-3 that on examination of litho map and block map as well as inspection of the land, the land is seen included in old survey No.40, etc. However, towards the final paragraph of Ext.P-3, the 1 st respondent has observed that unless he get a specific direction from the superior authority, he may not be in a position to take necessary action to consider and finalise the request of the petitioner for correction of old survey number 40/14 instead of the present survey number shown in BTR as 14/1. Since it is clearly stated in Ext.P-3 that litho map and block map as well as the local inspection of the land have disclosed that the land is included in Sy.No.40, it is meaningless to instruct the petitioner to approach the Land Tribunal for correction of the entry of the survey number in Ext.P-2 certificate which has been issued long ago. A reading of Ext.P-3 would make it clear that the 1 st respondent- Tahsildar has examined various aspects of the matter and presumably in view of the hierarchy of officials in the decision making process, he has insisted the petitioner that he could proceed with the matter only if he get specific direction in that regard from the superior officer. It is for the petitioner to file a detailed representation pointing out his grievances with reference to the matter detailed in Ext.P-3 and representation in that regard may be submitted before the 3 rd respondent-District Collector, Idukki, with the necessary prayers in that regard including for specific direction to the 1 st respondent-Thahsildar to proceed with the consideration of the merits of the matter so as to finalise the matter referred to in Ext.P-3 in accordance with law. The said representation should be filed by the petitioner before the 3 rd respondent-District Collector within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and upon receipt of such representation, the 3rd respondent-District Collector will take up the same for consideration and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, and after getting reports in that regard from the 1st respondent-Thahsildar and any other competent survey officials concerned, may decide the matter and pass appropriate orders thereon after considering all the specific grievances of the petitioners. Orders in that regard should be passed by the 3 rd respondent-District Collector, within 2 months from the date of submission of the said representation along with a certified copy of this judgment. It is made clear that it is open to the 3 rd respondent-District Collector to direct the Thahsildar or the survey officials concerned to make any site inspection and to submit a report in that regard in which case copies of such reports should also be furnished to the petitioner in order to enable the petitioner to know about the contents in those reports so as to enable him to present his version in aid of his contentions and submissions. The petitioner may file the above said representation along with copies of necessary documents including Ext.P-3.

(2.) With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.