Petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by the cancellation of mutation in respect of the property situated in survey Nos.254/5, 6,7,10,11,12 and 13, 255/13, 284/2 and 254/7 of Chennithala Village. According to the petitioner, actually petitioner's property situated in survey Nos.71/15, 16, 76/9 and 77/8 after resurvey survey numbers have been changed. The third respondent after measuring the property by virtue of the original partition deed found that the property of the petitioner is wrongly shown as puramboke thodu passing through the south-eastern boundary of the petitioner. Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 notice issued by the Survey Deputy Director, Alappuzha. He was intimated that the property situated in survey Nos.254/12, 13 form part of survey Nos.254/10,11 and effected mutation in favour of the petitioner has to be cancelled and if petitioner has an objection, he has to submit objection on cancellation. Petitioner challenging before this Court proceedings for cancellation.
W.P(C).No.20094 of 2012J 2
2. Learned Government Pleader placed before me communication of the District Collector, Alappuzha to the Deputy Director of Survey. It was informed that petitioner has encroached upon puramboke thodu and shown a wrong extent of his property and therefore he shall be intimated about the outcome of proceedings for cancellation.
Petitioner's case is that the puramboke thodu is form part of his property. Whether puramboke thodu would form part of this property or not can be identified with respect to his title deeds. Communication produced before this Court would show that it was initially shown in the property of the petitioner, based on possession. However, at later found out this thodu never formed part of his property and it is a puramboke thodu.
3. I am of the view, identity is the issue not cancellation of mutation. In view of the matter, Tahsildar shall conduct site inspection with respect to the title deed claimed by the petitioner and find out whether the puramboke thodu would form part of his property. According to the petitioner, it is one of the mistake in resurvey and therefore it has to be find out whether there is a mistake in resurvey. It is to be made out after identifying the W.P(C).No.20094 of 2012J 3 petitioner's property with respect to his title deed. Therefore needful shall be done by the Tahsildar after giving notice to the petitioner with the assistance of Survey Superintendent within a period of two months. Based on the outcome of such identification, a decision can be taken to restore the mutation effected in respect of the petitioner's property. The Tahsildar, Mavelikkara is suo moto impleaded as additional 4th respondent.
With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.
Sbna/06/12/14