RAJAMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner is the wife of late Madhavan Pillai, who, according to the petitioner, was the owner of an extent of 432.50 Acres of land, comprised in Sy.No.283/1-A in Perumpetty Village in Mallappally Taluk of Pathanamthitta District. The factual aspects highlighted in the writ petition are to the following effect. That the property belonging to Madhavan Pillai was part of a larger extent of 1592.50 Acres of land in Perumpetty Village (old Ezhamattur Village), Thirvalla Taluk in Alappuzha District, which originally belonged to the Koikkal family. From out of the 1592.50 Acres, members of the Koikkal family had assigned a large extent of land to one Oommen, S/o.Ponnoose of Eraviperoor Village; Oommen transferred an extent of 432.50 Acres to Madhavan Pillai, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. Thereafter, Madhavan Pillai sought demarcation of the boundaries of his property and when timely steps were not taken on his request, Madhavan Pillai had approached this Court by filing O.P.No.6926 of 1982. By judgment dated 24.2.1983, this Court disposed the original petition, directing the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Thrissur to conduct survey of the land covered by the Sale Deeds in favour of Madhavan Pillai. In spite of the time limit for conduct of the survey being extended by this Court, the direction was not complied with.

(2.) After the death of Madhavan Pillai, the petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P.No.34559 of 2002, which was disposed with a direction to the Secretary, Department of Revenue to take up and dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioner. Consequent to the direction, Re- survey was conducted, demarcating a portion of the property comprised in Sy.No.283/1-A of Perumpetty Village as encroached portion comprised in Block No.34 in Sy.Nos.174 to 192 and the balance portion as reserve forest. Being aggrieved by the survey report, the petitioner filed Ext.P1 petition before the second respondent and alleging inaction on the part of the second respondent in considering her petition, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.32189 of 2008, which resulted in Ext.P4 judgment, directing the third respondent to consider Ext.P1 and pass orders thereon, within three months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.

(3.) Thereafter, the third respondent drew up Ext.P5 report finding that the 432.50 Acres, which is the subject matter of the report, was purchased by Madhavan Pillai and that the said property did not have either 'pathivu' or 'pattayam', even as per the recitals in the Sale Deeds. It was stated in the report that, on inspection it was found that around 473 families were residing in the property and that steps were being taken at the Government level for issue of patta to those persons. That, in the Settlement Register, the property comprised in Sy.Nos.283/1A and 283/1B is described as 'purambokku' at Column No.4 and as reserve forest at Column No.18. The finding in the report is to the effect that after survey, the property is part of Re-Sy.No.193/1 and is in the possession of the Forest Department and therefore, it was not possible to conduct survey and demarcate the boundaries of the 432.50 Acres of land, in the absence of appropriate orders from the Government. Therefore, along with the report, the third respondent submitted a computerised sketch of the 432.50 Acres.