Kerala High Court
Biju Skaria vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2026 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1948
WP(C) NO. 20825 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
BIJU SKARIA,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O SKARIA, NEDUMPATHALIL HOUSE, MANKUTHIMEDU,
CHATHURANGAPARA., PIN - 685554
BY ADVS.
SHRI.BIBIN KUMAR
SRI.N.C.RAJESH
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
(REVENUE DEPARTMENT), REP. BY SECRETARY, GOVT.
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM., PIN - 695001
2 TAHASILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE , UDUMBANCHOLA, NEDUMKANDAM., PIN -
685553
3 TALUK SURVEYOR.
TALUK OFFICE, UDUMBANCHOLA, NEDUMKANDAM,, PIN - 685553
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHATHURANGAPPARA IDUKKI., PIN - 685554
5 ADD. R5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA, PAINAV P.O, IDUKKI-685 603
[IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS 5TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER
DATED 10/09/2024 IN WP(C) 20825/2024]
2
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
6 DR JOHNYKUTTY J OZHUKAYIL
AGED 64 YEARS, S/O JOSEPH, OZHUKKAYAIL HOUSE,
NEDUMKANDAM P.O, IDUKKI. PIN- 685553
[IS IMPLEADED AS 6TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DTD
24.11.2025 IN IA 1/25]
BY ADVS.
SRI.CHETHAN KRISHNA R, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SHRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL
SHRI.SARATH BABU KOTTAKKAL
SRI.E.ADITHYAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 09.06.2026,
THE COURT ON 07.07.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus
commanding respondents 2 and 3 to measure and demarcate the
landed property having an extent of 60.31 Ares in Sy.No.63/1-2
and 14.97 Ares in Sy No.39/183-1 of Chathurangapara Village
obtained by him as per Ext.P1 sale deed bearing No.2455 of 1999
dated 28.08.1999 of S.R.O. Udumbanchola.
2. According to the petitioner, during the rainy season, soil
erosion happens in the locality of his property, and in order to
protect his land, the construction of a retaining wall is highly
necessary. The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar,
Taluk Office, Udumbanchola, with Ext P4 application dated
03.12.2022 to demarcate the boundary of the property. But the
demarcation is delayed without any reason or justification.
3. The 2nd respondent Tahsildar, Udumbanchola, filed a
counter affidavit dated 06.07.2024 in the writ petition opposing
the reliefs sought for. Paragraph 3 of that counter affidavit reads
thus:
4
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
“3. Application submitted by the petitioner before the
second respondent for demarcation was sent to the Taluk
Surveyor for necessary action. Later, the Taluk Surveyor
informed the second respondent that the Field
Measurement Sketch with respect to the land is not
available in the office of the Surveyor and therefore, he
expressed his inability to conduct measurement with
respect to the land. In order to access the records relating
to the land from the higher office of the Survey Department,
a request has been sent to the higher office and required to
serve a copy of the Field Measurement Sketch. It is
respectfully submitted that necessary action will be taken
by the respondent, after obtaining the Field Measurement
Sketch.”
4. On 10.09.2024, when this matter was taken up for
consideration, this Court suo motu impleaded the District
Collector, Idukki, as additional 5th respondent, who has filed a
counter affidavit dated 19.10.2024, opposing the reliefs sought for
in the writ petition and producing therewith Exts.R5 (a) to R5 (c)
documents. Paragraph Nos.3 to 5 of the counter affidavit read as
follows:
“3. The application submitted by the petitioner before the
2nd respondent for demarcation of the land included in Ext
P1 sale deed was forwarded by the 2nd respondent to the
Taluk Surveyor for necessary action. Despite earnest efforts
5
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934to locate the Field Measurement Sketch of the land, for the
purpose of measuring the property of the petitioner, the
Taluk Surveyor was unable to locate the Field Measurement
Sketch. Consequently, a letter was addressed to the Central
Survey Office, Thiruvananthapuram and requested to tender
a copy of the Field Measurement Sketch. Copy of the letter
sent to the office of the Central Survey Office,
Thiruvananthapuram, dated 13.06.2024 is produced
herewith and may be marked as Ext.R5(a). In response to
Ext R5(a) communication, a letter was received by the 2nd
respondent from the office of the Central Survey, in which it
was stated that the sketch in question is not available in the
Central Survey Office, Thiruvananthapuram. Copy of the
letter dated 20.06.2024 is produced herewith and may be
marked as Ext R5(b). It is respectfully submitted that the
Taluk Surveyor informed that, without the Field
Measurement Sketch, demarcation of the land cannot be
conducted. Therefore, this respondent cannot acknowledge
about the location of the property correctly, as mentioned in
Ext P1 sale deed.
4. The following Table provides details regarding the prior
Title Deed of Exhibit – P1 Sale Deed;
Sale Deed No. Vendor Vendee
Partition Deed Partition Deed was executed among the Legal heirs
No.20/1988 of SRO, of Sri. Muthu Swami Konar, namely Ramaraj,
Udumbanchola Lakshmi Das and Dhanushkodi Raja
Sale Deed Dhanushkodi Chinnasamy Naikkar,
No.455/1996 of S/o.Thirupathi Naikkar
Udumbanchola SRO
6
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
2455/1999 of Chinnasamy Biju Skaria
Udumbanchola SRO Naikkar
5. As per the Thandaper No.704, one Muthusami Konar is
recorded as the owner of the property. However, most of the
relevant records including the Basic Tax Register kept in the
Village Office, Chathuranga Village, were destroyed by the
trespassers. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the
petitioner can approach before the Civil Court for the
purpose of demarcating the property. In Contempt of Court
Case (C) No.840 of 2023, this Hon’ble Court ordered the
parties in the Contempt case to approach before the Civil
Court for the purpose of demarcating the property therein.
Copy of the judgment in Contempt Case (C) No.840 of 2023
dated 07.11.2023 is produced herewith and may be marked
as Exhibit – R5(c). Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of any
merits and is only liable to be dismissed.”
5. Having found that non availability of a field measurement
sketch of a particular survery number of property is not a ground
for the 5th respondent to contend that the petitioner has to
approach the civil court for demarcation of the boundary, by a
detailed judgment dated 18.12.2024 we disposed of the writ
petition directing the 1st respondent State of Kerala to conduct the
survey of the property of the petitioner through the concerned
survey officials to demarcate the boundaries of the property in
Ext.P4 application, within a period of four months from the date
7
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment and the 2 nd
respondent Tahsildar was directed to take a decision on Ext.P4
application, on completion of the survey.
6. Subsequently, a third party who is presently impleaded as
the additional 6th respondent in the writ petition filed R.P.No.987
of 2025 under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the judgment
dated 18.12.2024 passed in the writ petition. In the review
petition, the review petitioner – 6th respondent contended that
his legal rights and interests are directly and substantially affected
by the judgment dated 18.12.2024. The 6th respondent had filed
Annexure A2 suit viz., O.S.No.14 of 2023, before the Munsiff
Court, Devikulam, against the writ petitioner, which concerns
boundary issues relating to the property involved in the writ
petition. In the said suit, the writ petitioner has filed Annexure
A4 written statement dated 16.10.2024. The learned Munsiff
passed Annexure A3 order dated 21.01.2023 in IA No.1 of 2023,
granting an ad interim injunction restraining the writ petitioner
and others from trespassing into the property schedule therein,
taking forceful possession thereof and from committing any waste
8
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
or mischief therein until further orders. It is suppressing these
aspects that the writ petition was filed. Moreover, the property
claimed by the writ petitioner falls in survey No.63/1-2, which is
already claimed as Government land as per Annexure A6
statement dated 24.06.2022 filed by the Tahsildar(LR),
Udumbanchola, in W.P.(C)No.18104 of 2022, which is a writ
petition filed by the 6th respondent against the Government.
Neither the writ petitioner nor the other respondents disclosed this
crucial fact before this Court in the writ petition, which goes to the
root of the matter.
7. By the order dated 23.07.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025,
the review petitioner – 6th respondent was granted leave to file
the said review petition. After hearing the learned counsel on both
sides and also the learned Senior Government Pleader and on
perusal of the materials on record, this Court, by the order dated
18.08.2025, allowed the review petition and recalled the judgment
dated 18.12.2024 passed in the writ petition. Paragraphs 7 to 9
and the last paragraph of that order read thus;
“7. From Annexures A2 to A5 documents produced by the
review petitioner, it is evident that a civil suit is pending
between the petitioner and the 1st respondent/the writ
9
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934petitioner before the Munsiff Court, Devikulam. The suit was
filed by the petitioner against the 1 st respondent/writ
petitioner and others seeking a decree of permanent
prohibitory injunction restraining them from trespassing
into the plaint schedule property therein and from taking
forceful possession of a portion of the property and from
committing any waste therein and doing any other act
which may disturb the peaceful enjoyment of the property
by the petitioner. In that Suit, an ad interim injunction was
also granted by the civil court against the 1st
respondent/writ petitioner and others by Annexure A3 order
dated 21.01.2023. It is also evident from Annexure A6
that another writ petition is filed by the review petitioner
before this Court, which according to him, is in respect of
the very same property.
8. The perusal of the materials on record would show
that the pleadings regarding the pendency of the civil
dispute between the petitioner and the 1st respondent/writ
petitioner is conspicuously absent in the writ petition. The
review petitioner is not made a party in the writ petition.
Neither the 1st respondent/writ petitioner nor the remaining
respondents brought to the notice of this Court the
pendency of a civil suit between the review petitioner and
the 1st respondent. While passing the judgment dated
18.12.2024, this Court specifically noted that relegating the
parties to the civil court is not possible for demarcation of
boundary, since there is no boundary dispute between the
1st respondent/writ petitioner and his neighbours.
9. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar
10
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934and the materials placed on record along with this review
petition, conclusion is irresistible that the 1st
respondent/writ petitioner obtained the judgment dated
18.12.2024, by suppressing material facts. In such
circumstances, the judgment is liable to be recalled.
In the result, this review petition is allowed, and the
judgment dated 18.12.2024 passed in W.P.(C)No.20825 of
2024 is reviewed and recalled.
Registry to list W.P.(C)No.20825 of 2024 on 21.08.2025.”
8. By the order dated 24.11.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025 filed
by the petitioner, the review petitioner in R.P. No. 987 of 2025 was
impleaded as the additional 6th respondent in this writ petition.
9. The additional 6th respondent filed a counter affidavit
dated 26.02.2026 opposing the pleadings in the writ petition and
producing therewith Exts.R6 (a) to R6 (h) documents. Paragraphs
2 to 14 of that counter affidavit read thus:
“2. At the outset, it is submitted that the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed. The writ petitioner had earlier
obtained a judgment dated 18.12.2024 in this writ petition
by suppressing material facts. The said judgment has since
been reviewed and recalled by this Hon’ble Court in R.P. No.
987 of 2025.
3. A true copy of the judgment dated 18.08.2025 in R.P. No.
987 of 2025 reviewing and recalling the earlier judgment
dated 18.12.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 20825 of 2024 is produced
11
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
herewith and marked as Exhibit R6(a).
4. This Hon’ble Court has categorically found that the writ
petitioner had suppressed the pendency of a civil suit
between the parties and that the earlier judgment was
obtained by suppression of material facts. In view of the
said finding, the writ petitioner is disentitled to any
discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
5. It is submitted that O.S. No. 14/2023 is pending before
the Hon’ble Munsiff’s Court, Devikulam, instituted by this
respondent against the writ petitioner and others in respect
of boundary disputes and rights over the very same
property involved in this writ petition. A true copy of the
plaint in O.S. No. 14/2023 is produced herewith and marked
as Exhibit R6(b).
6. In the said suit, specific disputes relating to boundary
between the properties of this respondent and the writ
petitioner have been raised. In I.A. No. 1/2023 in O.S. No.
14/2023, the learned Munsiff has granted an order of
interim injunction restraining the writ petitioner and others
from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, taking
forceful possession thereof and from committing waste or
mischief therein until further orders. A true copy of the order
dated 21.01.2023 in I.A. No. 1/2023 in O.S. No. 14/2023 is
produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R6(c).
7. The writ petitioner has filed written statement in the said
suit admitting that he shares boundary with this respondent.
A true copy of the written statement filed by the writ
petitioner in O.S. No. 14/2023 is produced herewith and
12
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
marked as Exhibit R6(d).
8. A true copy of the proceedings in O.S. No. 14/2023 of the
Hon’ble Munsiff’s Court, Devikulam is produced herewith
and marked as Exhibit R6(e).
9. It is further submitted that in W.P.(C) No. 18104/2022
filed by this respondent herein, the Tahsildar (LR),
Udumbanchola has filed a statement dated 24.06.2022
stating that the property in Survey No. 63/1 is Government
land. A true copy of the said statement dated 24.06.2022 is
produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R6(f).
10.The writ petitioner claims right over property in Survey
No. 63/1- 2, which forms part of the same larger survey
block. The overlapping nature of these claims and the
pending disputes demonstrate that the matter involves
serious and contested questions of title and boundary.
11.It is submitted that under the guise of survey
proceedings, the writ petitioner has attempted to enter upon
the property covered by the injunction order and has
commenced construction activities therein. True copies of
the photographs evidencing such activities are produced
herewith and marked as Exhibit R6(g).
12.The issues raised in the writ petition involve disputed
questions of title and boundary which are already pending
adjudication before the competent civil court. Such matters
cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
13.It is also to be noted that on 01.09.2025, after Exhibit
R6(a) order, the petitioner and his henchmen trespassed
into my property and assaulted me using a knife, sustaining
13
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
injuries on my forehead. It was not easy for me to get legal
remedy due to the writ petitioner’s influence in the police
station. An FIR was registered, which is Crime No 760 of
2025 of Udummbanchola Police Station. The true copy of
the FIR in Crime No 760 of 2025 of the Udummbanchola
Police Station, Idukki, is produced and is marked as Exhibit
R6(h).
14.In view of the finding of suppression recorded by this
Hon’ble Court in Exhibit R6(g), and in view of the pendency
of civil proceedings and subsisting injunction order, the writ
petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition.”
10. To the counter affidavit filed by the additional 6 th
respondent, the petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 22.03.2026,
producing therewith Exts.P6 to P10 documents. Paragraphs 3 to
11 of that reply affidavit read thus;
“3. The above writ petition has been filed by me seeking a
direction to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd and
3rd respondents to measure and demarcate the landed
property having an extent of 60.31 ares in Sy No 63/1-2 and
14.97 ares of land comprised in Survey No 39/183-1 in
Chathurangapara Village obtained as per Exhibit P-1 sale
deed. The writ petition is filed solely seeking a limited relief
seeking direction to the Tahsildar and Taluk Surveyor to
measure and demarcate the petitioner’s property based on
his title deed and application. The writ petition does not
involve adjudication of title or boundary disputes, but only
seeks statutory performance of duty by revenue authorities.
14
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
4. The averment in para 4 of the counter affidavit that O.S.
No. 14/2023 is pending before the Munsiff’s Court,
Devikulam, instituted by the 6th respondent against the writ
petitioner and others in respect of boundary disputes and
rights over the very same property involved in this writ
petition is not correct and hence denied. It is submitted that
the 6th respondent herein is a rank trespasser of the
Government land and the same has been and the same can
been seen from the Judgment in WP(c) No 33839 of 2019
dated 03.10.2023. A true copy of the Judgment in WP(c) No
33839 of 2019 dated 03.10.2023 is produced herewith and
marked as Exhibit P6. The 6th respondent has deliberately
misrepresented the nature of O.S. No. 14 of 2023. The said
suit is only a suit for injunction, it does not seek declaration
of title and It does not involve determination of boundary by
court. Therefore, the contention that there exists a “serious
boundary dispute” is factually incorrect and legally
untenable. A mere injunction suit cannot bar statutory
survey proceedings.
5. It is submitted that Survey and demarcation under the
Survey and Boundaries Act is a statutory duty and such
proceedings are ministerial in nature and do not decide title
and even in the presence of civil disputes, survey can and
must be conducted. The writ petition only seeks enforcement
of this statutory duty.
6. It is submitted that Revenue records and official
statements (including those produced in earlier writ
proceedings) clearly show that the disputed property forms
part of Government land. The 6th respondent is a rank
15
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934trespasser attempting to unlawfully occupy Government
land. This is also consistent with proceedings initiated under
the Kerala Land Conservancy Act.
7. The 6th respondent relies upon the written statement filed
by the petitioner in O.S. No. 14 of 2023. From the written
statement the petitioner has categorically denied the title
and possession of the plaintiff (6th respondent). It is
specifically contended that the plaintiff (6th respondent) is
making claims based on fabricated and forged documents.
The plaintiff has encroached into Government land and
proceedings were initiated by the Tahsildar. The plaintiff has
no possession over the plaint schedule property in the plaint.
8. The petitioner has clearly asserted his own title,
possession and welldefined boundaries. Thus, the written
statement does not support the 6th respondent’s case, but in
fact negates it entirely.
9. The averment in Para 9 of the counter affidavit is not fully
correct and hence denied. A true copy of the counter
affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, Tahsildar (LR) in WP (c)
No 18104/2022 dated 17.10.2022 is produced herewith and
may be marked as Exhibit P7. A true copy of the interim
order in WP (c) No 18104/2022 dated 7/1/2025 is produced
herewith and may be marked as Exhibit P8. Several criminal
cases have been registered against the 6th respondent for
encroaching into Government land, creating forged
documents and illegal excavation form Government land. A
true copy of the report submitted by the Village Officer,
Chaturnagapara to the Tahsildar, Udumbanchola dated
12/9/2022 is produced herewith and may be marked as
16
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934Exhibit P9. A true copy of the order passed by the Tahsildar,
Udumbanchola against the 6th respondent as per proceeding
No TLKUDM/4422/2025-G7 dated 12/3/2026 is produced
herewith and may be marked as Exhibit P10.
10. The averment in Para 13 of the counter affidavit is not
fully correct and hence denied. The averment that on
01.09.2025, after Exhibit R6(a) order. the petitioner and his
henchmen trespassed into 6th respondent’s property and
assaulted him using a knife, sustaining injuries on his
forehead is not correct and hence denied. These allegations
are a cooked up story. It is true that due to the political
influence of the 6th respondent, he managed to register a
FIR against me.
11.The allegation that the petitioner suppressed material
facts is denied since the writ petition was filed for a limited
administrative relief and non-mention of the suit does not
affect the relief sought, as the civil suit is only for injunction
and the Survey proceedings are independent. Hence, there
is no suppression affecting the merits of the writ petition.
The 6th respondent is attempting to use an injunction order
as a shield to prevent lawful survey and continue illegal
occupation of Government land, such conduct is an abuse of
process of law.”
11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader. Though the 6th respondent entered
appearance and filed a counter affidavit, there was no
representation for him when the matter was taken up for hearing.
17
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the 6th respondent is an encroacher on the Government land, and
he has no right over the property abutting the property covered in
Ext.P1 title deed of the petitioner. The civil suit pending between
the parties before the Munsiff Court, Devikulam, is a suit for
injunction and damages, and the pendency of the said suit is not
a Bar for consideration of his application filed under the provisions
of the Kerala Survey Boundaries Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short)
13. The learned Government pleader would submit that, as
per the pleadings in the writ petition and reply affidavit filed by
the petitioner, the petitioner is aggrieved by the removal of lateral
support by the 6th respondent on the boundary of his property. If
that be the grievance of the petitioner, his remedy is a suit for
injunction before the competent civil court. From the averments
in the counter affidavit filed by the 6th respondent as well as from
the averments in Ext.P4 application filed by the petitioner, it is
evident that there is boundary dispute between the petitioner and
the 6th respondent. Therefore, the remedy of the petitioner is not
a representation before the Tahsildar, but a civil suit for fixation of
the boundary.
18
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
14. The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent Tahasildar,
with Ext.P4 application to demarcate the boundary of his property
based upon Ext.P1 sale deed by which he obtained the same.
According to the respondents, it is not possible to identify the
boundary of the property of the petitioner for the reason that the
field measurement sketch pertaining to that property is
unavailable in the revenue offices. The contention of the 6 th
respondent is that there is boundary dispute existing between
the petitioner and the 6th respondent. According to the 6th
respondent, O.S.No.14 of 2023 instituted by the 6th respondent
against the petitioner and others is in respect of boundary disputes
and rights over the very same property involved in this writ
petition. The petitioner approached this Court by suppressing
the existence of the said civil suit between the parties in respect
of the subject matter property and also an interim injunction
granted in that suit by the Munsiff Court, Devikulam, on
21.01.2023.
15. The Act was enacted on 22.12.1961 with an object to
consolidate, amend and unify the law relating to the survey of land
and settlement of boundary disputes in the State of Kerala.
19
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
Section 2 (vi) of the Act defines ‘survey’. As per the said Section,
survey includes all operations incidental to the determination,
measurement and a record of a boundary or boundaries or any
part of a boundary and includes a resurvey. As per Section 2(viii)
of the Act, survey officer means any officer appointed by the
Government as a survey officer under Section 3. As per Section 3,
the Government may, by notification in the Gazette, appoint any
officer, either by name or by virtue of this office, to be a survey
officer for all or any of the purposes of the Act.
16. A detailed procedure is provided under Chapter II of
the Act for conducting survey of lands, which includes resurvey.
As per Section 4, the Government or subject to the control of the
Government or authority authorised by the Government in this
behalf, may, by notification in the Gazette, order the survey of any
land or of the boundary of any land or of the boundary forming
the common limit of any Government land and any registered
land. As per Section 5, a registered holder of any land may apply
to the Government or to any officer or authority authorised by the
Government in this behalf for the survey of his land on the ground
that a portion of the land has been lost by sea erosion or action of
20
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
the river. The manner in which the survey has to be conducted is
detailed in Sections 6 to 8 of the Act. Vast authority is given to the
survey officer as per sections 7 and 8 of the Act. As per Section
8, every survey officer shall be bound to carry out the survey in
the manner prescribed; provided that for the purpose of speedy
survey of the vast area of land, the Government may by
notification in the official gazette authorise the concerned survey
officer to conduct the survey through aerial survey or other
suitable modern methods utilizing services of expert agencies
specified by the Government in the notification.
17. As per Section 9 of the Act, the survey officer has the
power to determine and record as undisputed any boundary in
respect of which no dispute is brought to his notice. As per Section
10, the survey officer has the power to determine and to record a
disputed boundary with reasons. The recourse against the decision
of the survey officer taken under Sections 6, 7, 9 or 10 is provided
in Section 11 of the Act by way of an appeal to the prescribed
authority. As per Section 13, on completion of demarcation, the
survey officer shall notify the fact in the Gazette, and a copy of
such notification shall be posted in the Village Office, if any of the
21
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
Village to which the survey relates. Unless the survey so notified
is modified by the District Collector under Section 13A or by a Civil
Court under Section 14, the survey shall be conclusive proof of the
boundaries determined by the survey officer. As per Section 13A,
power of revision is given to the District Collector against the
completion of the demarcation under Section 13, if he is not
satisfied as to the legality of the determination on the ground of
any discrepancy, inaccuracy, defect or mistake of any kind crept
in such determination. As per Section 14 of the Act, any person
being aggrieved by the determination of the boundary under
Sections 9, 10, 11 or by an order passed by the Collector under
Section 13A may institute a suit within one year from the date of
notification under Section 13.
18. Provisions are made under Kerala Survey and
Boundaries Rules 1964, for inspection, upkeep and repair of
survey marks by the authority concerned. The Rules provide the
procedure for conducting survey, resurvey, effecting subdivisions,
correction in the previous survey measurements, etc.
19. The reading of various provisions in the Act and rules
would make it clear that a complete procedure is provided in the
22
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
Act for survey, including resurvey of the land, whether it is
Government land or in the possession of a registered holder. But,
the point in the instant case is whether the petitioner can seek
fixation of boundary between his property covered in Ext.P1 title
deed and that of the property over which the 6th respondent raises
claim.
20. Though the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent
by filing Ext.P4 application seeking identification of the boundary
of his property, he did not mention in that application the dispute
existing with the 6th respondent. From the counter affidavit filed
by the 6th respondent, it could be gathered that a suit as
O.S.No.14 of 2023 is pending between the parties before the
Munsiff Court, Devikulam, being instituted by the 6 th respondent
against the petitioner and others in respect of the very same
property involved in this writ petition. The copy of the plaint and
written statement of that suit are produced as Exts.R6(b) and
R6(d) respectively, along with the counter affidavit filed by the 6th
respondent. It is also gatherable from Ext.R6(c) order dated
21.01.2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in that suit that the Munsiff
court has granted an order of interim injunction restraining the
23
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
petitioner and others from trespassing into the plaint schedule
property therein and taking forceful possession thereof and from
committing waste and mischief until further orders. On the
complaint of the 6th respondent, a crime as Crime No.760 of 2025
was registered at Udumbanchola Police Station against the
petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 296(b),
115(2), 118(1) read with 3(5) of BNS for trespassing into the
property of the 6th respondent on 01.09.2025, in violation of the
order of injunction. In the writ petition, the petitioner has
suppressed the pendency of the suit between the petitioner and
the 6th respondent and the existence of an interim injunction
order passed by a competent civil court. The pleadings to that
effect are conspicuously absent in the writ petition.
21. The Apex Court while considering the effect of
suppression of material facts by a litigant while approaching the
Court seeking a discretionary remedy in Dalip Singh v. State of
UP [(2010) 2 SCC 114] held thus:
“1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic
values of life i.e. “satya” (truth) and “ahinsa” (nonviolence).
Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the
people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth
24
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934constituted an integral part of the justice – delivery system
which was in vogue in the pre – Independence era and the
people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts
irrespective of the consequences. However, post –
Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value
system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos
and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that
those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of
falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in
the court proceedings.
2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped
up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any
respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood
and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order
to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of
litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved
new rules and it is now well established that a litigant,
who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who
touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands.
is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.”
22. After considering various previous judgments including
that in Dalip Singh [(2010) 2 SCC 114] the Apex Court in
Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha [2024 (1) KHC 389] held
thus:
“It was held in the judgments referred to above that one of
the two cherished basic values by Indian society for
25
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934centuries is “satya” (truth) and the same has been put
under the carpet by the petitioner. Truth constituted an
integral part of the justice-delivery system in the pre-
independence era, however, post – Independence period
has seen drastic changes in our value system. The
materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest
for personal gain has become so intense that those involved
in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood,
misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court
proceedings. In the last 40 years, the values have gone
down and now a litigants can go to any extent to mislead
the court. They have no respect for the truth. The principle
has been evolved to meet the challenges posed by this new
breed of litigants. Now it is well settled that a litigant, who
attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the
pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled
to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts
from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the
court. The maxim supressio veri, expression faisi, i.e.
suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of
falsehood, gets attracted. Its nothing but degradation of
moral values in the society, may be because of our
education system. Now we are more happy to hear anything
except truth; read anything except truth; speak anything
except truth and believe anything except truth. Someone
rightly said that ‘Lies are very sweet, while truth is bitter,
that’s why most people prefer telling lies.'”
23. In Kusha Duruka [2024 (1) KHC 389] taking serious
26
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
note of the fact that the appellant obtained bail from the High
Court, without disclosing the pendency of that S.L.P., as well as of
the fact that it was his second bail petition, the Apex Court
imposed the appellant a cost of Rs.10,000/-. While imposing the
cost, the Apex Court observed that considering the conduct of the
appellant, one of the options available was to cancel his bail.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record
and the submissions made at the Bar, in the light of the judgments
of the Apex Court referred to above, we find that the petitioner
has approached this Court by suppressing material facts and
without clean hands. Moreover, as noted above, the contentions
raised by the 6th respondent and the documents produced by
him by way of Exts.R6(b) to (d) pertaining to the civil suit
pending between the parties show that the dispute between the
petitioner and the 6th respondent is not merely a boundary
dispute. In such a situation, taking recourse to the Survey and
Boundaries Act, 1961, will not solve the issue. A writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a substitute
for a regular civil suit for fixation of boundary. From the
pleadings and materials in the instant case, as discussed above,
27
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
we are of the opinion that the petitioner is trying to short circuit
the legal process of filing a civil suit for fixation of boundary or
other reliefs claimable in order to establish his right over the
property. Therefore, we find no merit in the writ petition.
In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
28
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 20825 OF 2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO
2455/1999 OF UDUMPANCHOLA S.R.O DATED
28/8/1999
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
8/11/2022
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF BTR
EXTRACT OF THANDAPER NO 3589 ISSUED FROM THE
OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 3/12/2022
Exhibit P5 THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
WAS ACCEPTED AND TAKEN INTO FILED AND
NUMBERED AS H2-406239/22 BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 6/12/2022
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R5(a) True Copy of the Letter sent to the office
of the Central Survey Office,
Thiruvananthapuram dated 13.06.2024.
EXHIBIT R5(b) True Copy of the Letter dated 20.06.2024
received by the 2nd respondent from the
office of the Central Survey Office,
Thiruvananthapuram.
EXHIBIT R5(c) True Copy of the judgment in Contempt Case
(C) No. 840/2023 dated 07.11.2023.
Exhibit R6(a) A true copy of the judgment dated 18.08.2025
in R.P. No. 987 of 2025 reviewing and
recalling the earlier judgment dated
18.12.2024 in W.P.(C) No. 20825 of 2024
Exhibit R6(b) A true copy of the plaint in O.S. No. 14/2023
Exhibit R6(c) A true copy of the order dated 21.01.2023 in
I.A. No. 1/2023 in O.S. No. 14/2023
Exhibit R6(e) A true copy of the proceedings in O.S. No.
14/2023 of the Hon'ble Munsiff's Court,
Devikulam
Exhibit R6(f) A true copy of the statement of facts
submitted in WP(C) 18104/2022 before the
Hon'ble High Court dated 24.06.2022
Exhibit R6(g) A true copies of the photographs evidencing
activities
29
WP(C)No.20825 of 2024 2026:KER:48934
Exhibit R6(h) The true copy of the FIR in Crime No 760 of
2025 of the Udummbanchola Police Station,
Idukki
Exhibit R6(d) A true copy of the written statement filed
by the writ petitioner in O.S. No. 14/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P6 A true copy of the Judgment in WP( c ) No
33839/2019 dated 3/10/2023
Exhibit P7 A true copy of the counter affidavit filed
by the 4th respondent, Tahsildar ( LR) in WP
( c) No 18104/2022 dated 17/10/2022
Exhibit P8 A true copy of the interim order in WP ( c)
No 18104/2022 dated 7/1/2025
Exhibit P9 A true copy of the report submitted by the
Village Officer, Chaturnagapara to the
Tahsildar, Udumbanchola dated 12/9/2022
Exhibit P10 . A true copy of the order passed by the
Tahsildar, Udumbanchola against the 6th
respondent as per proceeding No
TLKUDM/4422/2025-G7 dated 12/3/2026
