W.P.(C). Nos.13746 and 14605 of 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 ## **WP(C).No. 13746 of 2010(P)** PETITIONERS: - --------------- 1. PRATHAP.S.NAIR,VELLANGAL VEEDU, ULIYACOIL PO, KOLLAM. 2. ASHADEVI, VELLANGAL VEEDU, - ULIYACOIL PO, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENTS: - --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, - SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, KOLLAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, SURVEY AND LAND RECCORDS, RE-SURVEY, KOLLAM. 4. TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, KOLLAM EAST,KOLLAM. 6. LALITHAKUMARY,KRISHNAVILASOM,ULIYACOIL, KOLLAM EAST, KOLLAM. ADDL.R7 IMPLEADED: 7. K.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, KRISHNA VILASAM, ULIYACOIL P.O., - KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM 19. ADDL.R7 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 9.6.2010 IN I.A. NO.7272 OF 2010. ADV. SRI.M.M.ABDUL AZIZ, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R6&ADDL.R7 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.NISHA BOSE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2010, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) NO.14605 OF 2010, THE COURT ON 22/10/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **APPENDIXIN W.P.(C) NO.13746 OF 2010** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS** : EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A.S.NO.19 OF 1986 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM DATED 10.7.1989. - EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM IN E.P.NO.274/2006 DATED 27.5.2009. - EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.NO.193/1995 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM DATED 9.1.1996. - EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.9899 OF 2008 DATED 28.3.2008. - EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.9899 OF 2009 DATED 26.5.2008. - EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 17.3.2003. - EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO LATE SREEDHARAN NAIR PURSUANT TO EXT.P6 ORDER DATED 20.3.2003. - EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 28.10.2008. EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.32575 OF 2008 DATED 29.1.2010. - EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT WITHOUT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ALONG THE SAME DATED 15.3.2010. - EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEARING NO.SURVEY1-58778/2008 DATED 5.4.2010. - EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.A10-6610/10 PASSED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 21.4.2010. - EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM IN E.P.NO.171/1997 DATED 15.3.2001. - EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM IN E.A.NO.416/2001 IN E.P.NO.171/1997 DATED 28/7/2004. - EXT.P15 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM IN E.A.NO.48/2005 IN E.P.NO.171/1997 DATED 27.11.2007. - EXT.P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN EXHIBIT P6 APPLICATION DATED 14.3.2008. - EXT.P17 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF RE-SURVEY DATED 5.6.2010. ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:** EXT.R7(a) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.515/1975 OF THE SRO, KOLLAM, DATED 15.2.1975.. EXT.R7(aa) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.539/69/RD OF THE REVENUE (A) DEPARTMENT, DATED 3.11.1967.. EXT.R7(b) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SURVEY MANUAL OF THE YEAR 2003 OF KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE DATED NIL.. EXT.R7(c) PHOTOSTATCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.L.DIS.NO.58593/01 FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DATED 20.11.2001. EXT.R7(d) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.C.8/36020/04 OF THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KOLLAM, DATED 9.12.2004. EXT.R7(e) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE EXPARTE DECREE IN O.S.NO.193/1995 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOLLAM, DATED 9.1.1996. - EXT.R7(f) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.4-471/03 WRONGLY TREATING 2.50 ARES OF GOVERNMENT LAN DATED 17.3.2003. - EXT.R7(g) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.3.2003.. EXT.R7(h) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, RESURVEY, DATED 20.2.2008. - EXT.R7(i) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DATED 4.10.2008. - EXT.R7(j) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF BASIC TAX FOR 1.12 HECTARE IN R.S.NO.42 IN BLOCK NO.12 OF KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE DATED 7.2.1997. - EXT.R7(k) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF SIMILAR RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF BASIC TAX, DATED 18.3.1998. - EXT.R7(l) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.9899 OF 2008 OF THIS COURT, DATED 26.5.2008. - EXT.R7(m) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF COMPOUND WALL COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY CLOSING MY INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM MY RESIDENTIAL PLOT. - EXT.R7(n) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM IN MANGALAM DAILY NEWS PAPER DATED 7.4.2008. - EXT.R7(o) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.17920/2008 CANCELLING EXT.R7(f), DATED 28.10.2008.. - EXT.R7(p) PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.32575/2008 OF THIS COURT, DATED 29.1.2010. //TRUE COPY// AHZ/ ## **K.T.SANKARAN, J.** ## **-----------------------------------------------------W.P.(C).NOS.13746 &14605 OF 2010 -----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of October, 2010** ## **JUDGMENT** W.P.(C) No.13746 of 2010 is filed by Prathap S.Nair and Ashadevi for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings dated 5.4.2010, issued by the Survey Deputy Director, Kollam (Ext.P11) and the order dated 21.4.2010 (Ext.P12) under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, issued by the Tahsildar & Executive Magistrate, Kollam. In W.P.(C) No.13746 of 2010, respondents 6 and 7 are Lalithakumary and K.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair. ## 2. W.P.(C) No.14605 of 2010 is filed by K.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the Tahsildar & Executive Magistrate, Kollam; The Revenue Divisional Officer & Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kollam; The District Collector & District Magistrate, Kollam and State of Kerala, who are respondents 1 to 4 respectively, to remove all the obstructions to the pathway described in Ext.P2 and to provide free ingress and egress to the petitioner and W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 :: 2 :: his wife to their residential plot. There is also a prayer for the issue of a writ of mandamus to compel respondents 1 to 4 to enforce Exts.P14 and P15 orders (Exts.P11 and P12 in W.P.(C) No.13746 of 2010). 3. According to Prathap S.Nair and his mother Ashadevi, an extent of 2.77 acres of land in Sy.Nos.10211, 10212 and 10213 (78 cents, 1.14 acres and 85 cents respectively in these survey numbers) belonged to Sreedharan Nair, father of Prathap S.Nair. It is stated that in 1984, certain persons residing on the western side of the aforesaid land attempted to trespass upon a portion of the property in order to form a pathway to the public road on the eastern side of the property. At that juncture, Sreedharan Nair filed O.S.No.37 of 1984 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kollam, against those persons who attempted to trespass upon the land. That suit was dismissed by the trial court, but on appeal (A.S.No.19 of 1986), the Appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial court and decreed the suit, as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 10.7.1989. Though the defendants filed S.A.No.939 of 1989, it was dismissed on 30.7.1998. It is stated that in that suit, the plaint A schedule property is shown as 85 cents in Sy.No.10213, plaint B schedule and C ## W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 :: 3 :: schedule are shown as the pathway and plaint D schedule was shown as the wall on the eastern side. Legal representatives of Sreedharan Nair filed E.P.No.274 of 2006 to enforce the decree. A Commissioner was appointed in the execution proceedings as per Ext.P2 order dated 27.5.2009. It is stated that a compound wall was constructed on the eastern side of the plaint schedule property. 4. Gopalakrishnan Nair and Lalithakumary were not parties to O.S.No.37 of 1984. Gopalakrishnan Nair and his brother owned an extent of 35 cents of land on the southern side of the property belonging to Sreedharan Nair. It is stated that in 1975, Gopalakrishnan Nair and his brother entered into a partition deed, by which, an extent of 18 cents was allotted to Gopalakrishnan Nair on the western side of the total extent of 35 cents. The property having road frontage on the east was allotted to the brother of Gopalakrishnan Nair. It is alleged by Prathap S.Nair that Gopalakrishnan Nair demolished the compound wall separating his property and the property of Sreedharan Nair and attempted to use a portion of Sreedharan Nair's property as a pathway. Sreedharan Nair filed O.S.No.193 of 1995 against Gopalakrishnan Nair for prohibitory injunction and for a mandatory injunction to restore the W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 :: 4 :: compound wall to its original position. O.S.No.193 of 1995 was decreed as per Ext.P3 decree dated 9.1.1996 (marked as Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.14605 of 2010). It is alleged that Gopalakrishnan Nair did not comply with the decree and disobeying the decree, he demolished a portion of the compound wall and erected a gate. E.P.No.171 of 1997 in O.S.No.193 of 1995 was filed by Sreedharan Nair to execute the decree dated 9.1.1996. The executing court passed an order dated 15.3.2001 (Ext.P13 in W.P.(C) No.13746 of 2010) holding thus: “In fact the judgment debtor did not enter the box to deny the allegations. It has come out in evidence that entire 35 cents belonged to judgment debtor and his brother having road frontage on the eastern side. The properties were lying contiguously. When the judgment debtor and his brother partitioned the properties judgment debtor was given the share on the western side. Hence the testimony of DW1 that family had been using the way through decree schedule for the last 100 years cannot be believed even for a moment. That apart her testimony would reveal that Judgment Debtor has no respect to law. Learned counsel for the judgment debtor would try to develop a case that there is purampokku on the southern side of decree schedule ## W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 :: 5 :: and that it lie as a pathway from time immortal. But he had not succeeded to convince the same. Testimony of PWs.1 and 2, DW1 and Ext.C1 and C2 would suggestively gather the inference that even though the judgment debtor had the opportunity to obey the decree have wilfully filed to obey the same and has been using the southern portion of decree scheduled as a pathway without restoring the compound wall to its original position. In fact the judgment debtor did not contest the suit and an exparte decree was passed. No doubt, it is as good as a valid decree till it is set aside by the court which passed the same. Judgment debtor has taken no steps so far to set aside the exparte decree. Therefore I hold that Judgment debtor is bound to obey the decree at any cost. From the above circumstances I hold that Decree Holder has succeeded to prove that the judgment debtor has contumaciously violated the decree and therefore the same is liable to be enforced by him. Judgment Debtor is not entitled to use any portion of decree schedule as a way. And he is directed to restore the compound wall demolished by him and to remove the gate installed on the wall within three weeks from this date. In the meanwhile there shall be attachment of the ## W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 :: 6 :: property owned by Judgment debtor and on his failing to obey the decree, the decree holder is allowed to restore the compound wall to its original position and to remove the gate at the cost and expenses of the judgment debtor and his assets and by the sale of his properties. EP posted for further steps.” The order dated 15.3.2001 was confirmed in C.R.P.No.1024 of 2001. 5. Contending that Gopalakrishnan Nair did not obey the decree and did not restore the compound wall, Sreedharan Nair filed E.A.No.416 of 2001 in E.P.No.171 of 1997 in O.S.No.193 of 1995 to appoint a Commissioner for the purpose of restoring the compound wall. As per the order dated 28.7.2004 (Ext.P14 in W.P.(C) N0.13746 of 2010) passed by the executing court, a Commissioner was appointed. It is stated that though Gopalakrishnan Nair challenged Ext.P14 order in W.P.(C) No.32713 of 2004 before the High Court, that Writ Petition was dismissed on 10.12.2004. Pursuant to the order passed by the executing court, the compound wall was restored in the presence of the Commissioner on 22.1.2005. It is alleged that on 22.1.2005 itself, the compound wall was demolished by Gopalakrishnan Nair. Thereupon, the legal ## W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 :: 7 :: representatives of Sreedharan Nair filed E.A.No.48 of 2005 in E.P.No.171 of 1997 in O.S.No.193 of 1995. The executing court passed an order dated 27.11.2007 (Ext.P15 in W.P.(C) No.13746 of 2010), in which, it was held that the compound wall was demolished by Gopalakrishnan Nair in disobedience and against the terms of the decree passed by the civil court. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: “In the result, petition is allowed as follows: (a) Decree holders are permitted to construct the compound wall in its original position through the process of this court at the expense of judgment debtor. (b) The expense to be incurred for the construction of the compound wall is liable to be recovered from the judgment debtor and his assets. (c) The expense incurred for the construction of the compound wall on 22.1.2005 Rs.10,000/- is also liable to be recovered from the judgment debtor and his assets. (d) Decree holder is entitled to get the costs of the petition.” ## W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 :: 8 :: 6. It is stated that though Gopalakrishnan Nair challenged the order dated 27.11.2007 (Ext.P15) in W.P.(C) No.4321 of 2008, the Writ Petition was dismissed on 6.2.2008. The further allegation is that pursuant to Ext.P15 order, when the amin attempted to restore the compound wall on 6.2.2008, the amin was obstructed by Gopalakrishnan Nair. Amin reported the matter to the Court. The Court directed the Superintendent of Police to give sufficient protection to the amin to execute the order. On 7.2.2008, the compound wall was restored with police aid. It is alleged by Prathap S.Nair that on 7.2.2008 itself, Gopalakrishnan Nair demolished the compound wall constructed by the amin. Again, the decree holders filed E.A.No.156 of 2008 before the executing court for passing an order to restore the compound wall through the process of the court. That application was allowed by the order dated 14.3.2008 (Ext.P16 in W.P.(C) No.13746 of 2010). The decree holders were permitted to recover the expenses of Rs.10,000/- from the judgment debtor, namely, Gopalakrishnan Nair. It is alleged by Prathap S.Nair that in spite of the direction by the civil court to the Superintendent of Police to afford adequate police protection for the purpose of restoring the compound wall, due to the political influence of Gopalakrishnan Nair, police aid was not afforded. Therefore, Prathap S.Nair filed W.P.(C) W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 :: 9 :: No.9899 of 2008. An interim order dated 28.3.2008 (Ext.P4 in W.P. (C) No.13746 of 2010) was passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.9899 of 2008. The order reads as follows: “Heard. The facts of the case disclosed are really distressing. The 4[th] respondent is repeatedly flouting the orders of the civil court, allegedly with the connivance of the Police Officials. The petitioner submits, as per Ext.P7 even though the execution court addressed the police to render assistance to the petitioner to put up the compound wall, the police have not taken any action. Having regard to the facts of the case, an interim order as prayed for is issued. Having regard to the special facts of the case, we proposed to award compensatory costs against the respondents including the Police Officials. They may show cause why we may not pass such an order.” It is stated that the compound wall was thereafter restored with police aid. W.P.(C) No.9899 of 2008 was disposed of by the Division Bench by the judgment dated 26.5.2008 (Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.13746 of 2010). In W.P.(C) No.9899 of 2008, Gopalakrishnan Nair raised a contention that the decree in O.S.No.193 of 1995 was W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 **==> picture [38 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** obtained by fraud. The fraud alleged is that the puramboke pathway was shown as part of the property of the plaintiff therein and a decree was obtained suppressing material facts. It was also alleged that Gopalakrishnan Nair was using that pathway for the last several years and that he has no other access to his property. Gopalakrishnan Nair also raised a contention that he was not really made a party to O.S.No.193 of 1995 as the name of the defendant was shown as K.P.Gopalakrishna Pillai instead of K.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair. It is also pointed out by him that he had filed O.S.No.689 of 2001 before the Munsiff's Court for a declaration of his right over the pathway through the disputed portion of the property. The Division Bench considered the contentions put forward by Gopalakrishnan Nair and held thus: “7. The learned senior counsel for the 4[th] respondent relied on the decision of the Apex Court in **S.P.Chengalyaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994(1) SCC** **1)** and submitted that Exhibit P1 decree, which was obtained by fraud, is void and the same can be attacked in execution proceedings and even collaterally. Therefore, this Court may not extend its helping hand to the petitioner, who is seeking the relief on the strength of a decree obtained by fraud by her husband, it is submitted. W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 :: 11 :: 8. We notice that Exhibit P1 has become final. We also notice that in Exhibit P2, P3, P4, P6 and P7 orders, the 4[th] respondent was appearing through counsel, wherein he was described as Gopalakrishna Pillai. In C.R.P.No.1024/2001, he had described himself as Gopalakrishna Pillai. If Exhibit P1 was obtained by fraud, the 4[th] respondent should establish the same in appropriate proceedings. Though he has filed a suit seeking reliefs against Exhibit P1, there is no interim order in that suit. It is true, if the 4[th] respondent feels that the decree was obtained by fraud, he can resist the same in the execution proceedings. In the orders passed in the execution petition and execution applications, he could have raised those contentions. But the challenges attempted against those orders before this Court were already repelled. 9. The writ petitioner approached this Court, since the Police did not extend necessary help to execute the decree on the basis of Exhibit P7 order of the Civil Court. When Ext.P7 order is received, the Police have a duty to act as requested therein. The Police have failed to do that. Therefore this writ petition is filed, seeking a writ of mandamus against the police. We feel that it is quite inappropriate for the 4[th] respondent to set up a plea of nullity of the decree in W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 :: 12 :: this case. He could have set up that plea before the court below or in the proceedings before this Court, challenging the orders of the court below. The police cannot look into that contention or accept that contention. As we have repeated in several other cases, this Court, in the police protection jurisdiction is concerned only with the failure of duty of the police enjoined upon them by the statutes. Since the Police do not have any duty to accept the contention concerning the validity of Exhibit P1, we cannot also go into the validity of Exhibit P1, raised collaterally before us in this writ petition. Therefore, the said contention of the 4[th] respondent is overruled. If the 4[th] respondent has any grievance, he has to take recourse to other remedies under law. He has already invoked one of the remedies available to him, by filing a suit. But, instead of obtaining appropriate orders in that suit, he cannot take law into his hand and physically prevent the execution of the decree, which has become final. That is what is attempted in this case and therefore the Civil Court, by Exhibit P7 addressed the police to enforce its orders. Since the Police failed to do that, we are fully justified in issuing the direction as prayed for by the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The Police shall render necessary protection for maintenance of the compound wall already constructed. But this direction ## W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 **==> picture [38 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** will be subject to any orders of the competent civil court concerning the matter. In other words, this judgment will not stand in the way of the 4[th] respondent to pursue his claims and rights before the civil court. Having regard to the facts of the case, the petitioner is entitled to get costs from the 4[th] respondent, which is quantified as Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only).” Prathap S.Nair alleged that even after the judgment in W.P.(C) No.9899 of 2008, Gopalakrishnan Nair had attempted to demolish the compound wall and therefore, police personnel were posted at the site. 7. The further case of Prathap S.Nair is that in the resurvey, at the influence of Gopalakrishnan Nair and others, an extent of 2.50 Ares in old Sy.No.10213, which was owned and held by Sreedharan Nair, was included in R.S.No.41 and it was shown as “purambokuvazhi” in the resurvey records. The remaining properties owned and held by Sreedharan Nair were included in R.S.No.42. It is alleged that Sreedharan Nair came to know of this only during 2003. Immediately he filed an application before the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Re-survey, Kollam (third ## W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 :: 14 :: respondent) to rectify the mistake. The third respondent passed an order dated 17.3.2003 (Ext.P6 in W.P.(C) No.13746 of 2010), holding that a portion of old Sy.No.10213 was wrongly shown as “bhoosthidi purambokuvashi” in R.S.No.41. It was held that the said portion of land was part of the land belonging to Sreedharan Nair. Accordingly, necessary rectification was ordered to be made in the revenue records. Before passing Ext.P6 order, an enquiry was conducted on the spot with reference to the title deeds, survey records, revenue records, etc. by the survey authorities. It is stated that rectification was effected in accordance with the order dated 17.3.2003 and Sreedharan Nair was permitted to pay tax, as evidenced by Ext.P7 tax receipt. It is alleged by Prathap S.Nair that after the judgment in W.P.(C)No.9899 of 2008 was passed, Lalithakumary lodged a complaint before the Deputy Director of Survey, Survey and Land Records, challenging the correctness of the order dated 17.3.2003 passed by the Assistant Director. It is stated by Prathap S.Nair that without hearing him and the other interested parties, the Deputy Superintendent of Surveys passed an order dated 28.10.2008 (Ext.P8 in W.P.(C) no.13746 of 2010 and Ext.P12 in W.P.(C) No.14605 of 2010), setting aside the order dated 17.3.2003 passed by the Assistant Director of Surveys and Land W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 **==> picture [38 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Records. In Ext.P8 order, the Deputy Director of Surveys stated that Sreedharan Nair was having a total extent of 2.77 acres and in the resurvey, that extent was retained. The pathway was rightly shown in R.S.No.41 as a pathway. That way is being used and, therefore, it is necessary to retain it as “bhoosthidi purambokuvazhi”. Prathap S.Nair and Ashadevi filed W.P.(C) No.32575 of 2008 challenging the order dated 28.10.2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Surveys. The High Court set aside the order passed by the Deputy Director of Surveys on the ground that Prathap S.Nair was not heard before passing the order. The Deputy Director of Survey was directed to pass fresh orders after affording opportunity of being heard to the affected parties. Ashadevi filed a detailed statement dated 15.3.2010 (Ext.P10) before the Deputy Director of Surveys. The Deputy Director of Surveys disposed of the matter as per the order dated 5.4.2010 (Ext.P11 in W.P.(C) No.13746 of 2010 and Ext.P14 in W.P.(C) No.14605 of 2010). The Deputy Director set aside the order dated 17.3.2003 passed by the Assistant Director. It was held by the Deputy Director that Sreedharan Nair was having 2.77 acres of land in three survey numbers and in the resurvey that extent was retained. The pathway was shown in R.S.No.41. The extent of land belonging to Sreedharan Nair would be satisfied even without ## W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 **==> picture [38 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** including the extent of 2.5 Ares of land included in R.S.No.41. Another reason stated by the Deputy Director in his order is that in the partition deed executed between Gopalakrishnan Nair and his brother, the northern boundary includes a pathway. It was ordered by the Deputy Director of Surveys that the extent of 2.50 Ares should be retained as “bhoosthidi purambokuvazhi”. It would appear that Lalithakumary filed an application before the Executive Magistrate against Ashadevi on the basis of the order dated 5.4.2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Surveys. It was alleged in that petition that the portion of land which was shown as “bhoosthidi purambokuvazhi” in the resurvey records was enclosed by Ashadevi to her property and thus obstructed entry to the “bhoosthidi purambokuvazhi”. It was prayed that the obstruction has to be removed. The Executive Magistrate passed an order dated 21.4.2010 (Ext.P12 in W.P.(C) No.13746 of 2010), directing Ashadevi to demolish the compound wall which caused obstruction to the pathway. 8. As stated above, W.P.(C) No.13746 of 2010 is filed challenging Exts.P11 and P12 orders therein while W.P.(C) No.14605 of 2010 is filed to enforce those orders. W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 **==> picture [38 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 9. The contentions raised by Gopalakrishnan Nair, the seventh respondent in W.P.(C) No.13746 of 2010, are the following: The Writ Petition is not maintainable. The orders under challenge in W.P.(C) No.13746 of 2010 are legal and valid. 2.50 Ares of purampoku land in R.S.No.41 in Block No.12 of Kollam East Village has been in existence from time immemorial as a public way lying on the northern side of the residential plot of Gopalakrishnan Nair for his ingress and egress to his property. The pathway is being used by several other persons as well. The extent of 2.50 Ares stated above was part of 84 cents of purampoku land in old Survey No.10210 of Kollam East Village and it is not part of the 85 cents of land in Sy.No.10213. The pathway having an extent of 2.50 Ares of government land lies in between the property of Gopalakrishnan Nair and 85 cents of land in Sy.No.10213 involved in O.S.Nos.37 of 1984 and 193 of 1995. The resurvey in Kollam District commenced in 1968. The resurvey sketch and plan were finally approved in 1992. The extent of 2.77 acres of registered land of late Sreedharan Nair was classified as 2.77 acres in R.S.No.42 in Block 2 of Kollam East Village, whereas the disputed 2.50 Ares of land was included in R.S.No.41 in Block 12. The decree in O.S.No.193 of 1995 was obtained by fraud. Gopalakrishnan Nair was not made a party in that W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 **==> picture [38 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** suit. On the other hand, the name of Gopalakrishna Pillai was shown as the defendant in that suit. The decree was passed exparte. On the basis of the decree in O.S.No.193 of 1995, Prathap S.Nair fraudulently obtained Ext.P6 order 17.3.2003 from the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records. On the basis of that order, Sreedharan Nair paid basic tax for the extent of 2.50 Ares of land. The extent of 2.77 Acres belonging to Sreedharan Nair is entirely distinct and different and separated from the extent of 2.50 Ares of government land which is used as public pathway. The order in W.P.(C) No.9899 of 2008 was obtained fraudulently on the basis of the exparte decree in O.S.No.193 of 1995. The attempt of Sreedharan Nair and his legal representatives was to close the pathway and annex that land to their property and thereby to defeat the legitimate claim of Gopalakrishnan Nair. Now Gopalakrishnan Nair and his family members are not in a position to go out as their only way was blocked. The judgment and decree in O.S.Nos.37 of 1984 and 193 of 1995 relate to the extent of 85 cents of land in old Sy.No.10213 and it does not relate to the 2.50 Ares of land claimed as pathway. It was also contended that late Sreedharan Nair dishonestly and fraudulently stated in O.S.No.193 of 1995 and in the earlier suit that the land claimed by Gopalakrishnan Nair and others ## W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 :: 19 :: as pathway was part of the 85 cents of land in old Sy.No.10213 of Kollam East Village and thereby dishonestly and fraudulently obtained the decree in those suits. No suit was filed by Sreedharan Nair nor his legal representatives for declaration of their title to the disputed extent of 2.50 Ares of land. Similar contentions were raised by Gopalakrishnan Nair in W.P.(C) No.14605 of 2010 filed by him. 10. Sri.M.M.Abdul Aziz, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Gopalakrishnan Nair, submitted that Prathap S.Nair and his family members had not lost any extent of land and this is clear from the resurvey records. They retained the extent of 2.77 acres of land in R.S.No.42. The counsel relied on Exts.P17 and P18 marked in W.P.(C) No.14605 of 2010 in support of this contention, which would disclose that the legal representatives of Sreedharan Nair paid land revenue for 1.12 hectares of land (equivalent to 2.76 acres) in R.S.No.42. The counsel submitted that fraud vitiates everything, including the decree obtained by fraud. He relied on the decisions in **N.Khosla** v. **Rajlakshmi** ((2006) 3 SCC 605), **S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu** v. **Jagannath** ((1994) 1 SCC 1) and **Hamza Haji** v. **State of Kerala** ((2006) 7 SCC 416). It is also contended that going by the provisions of the Survey and Boundaries Act, the proceedings taken W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 **==> picture [38 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** under the Act would be conclusive, in the absence of a decree as provided under Section 14 of the Act. 11. Sri.P.B.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Prathap S.Nair, submitted that Gopalakrishnan Nair has already filed O.S.No.789 of 2001 and unless and until he succeeds in that suit and a declaration is granted to the effect that the decree passed in O.S.No.193 of 1995 is vitiated by fraud, he cannot bypass the decree validly passed by the civil court and rely on the orders passed by the survey authorities and the Sub Divisional Magistrate which are under challenge in W.P.(C) No.13746 of 2010. It is also contended by him that Gopalakrishnan Nair raised similar contentions, as are raised in these Writ Petitions, in W.P.(C) No.9899 of 2008 (Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.13746 of 2010 and Ext.P9 in W.P.(C) No.14605 of 2010) and those contentions were negatived. The findings in W.P.(C) No.9899 of 2008 would operate as a bar in respect of the contentions raised by Gopalakrishnan Nair in the present Writ Petitions, applying the principles of res judicata. The counsel also contended that actually fraud was committed by Gopalakrishnan Nair and his wife Lalithakumary by influencing the survey officials. The fraud was detected and unearthed, which resulted in Ext.P6 order dated ## W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 :: 21 :: 17.3.2003 in W.P.(C) No.13746 of 2010. The counsel submitted that about five years after the date of passing Ext.P6 order and after the judgment in W.P.(C) No.9899 of 2008 was passed, Gopalakrishnan Nair and his wife could prevail upon the Deputy Director of Surveys, who passed the order dated 28.10.2008 and later the order dated 5.4.2010 (Exts.P8 and P11 orders in W.P.(C) No.13746 of 2010). It is submitted that Ext.P11 order dated 5.4.2010 was passed based on the northern boundary shown in the partition deed executed between Gopalakrishnan Nair and his brother, which is only a self serving statement. 12. The judgment and decree in O.S.No.193 of 1995 were passed on 9.1.1996. That suit was filed by Sreedharan Nair for prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction. No appeal was filed against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.193 of 1995 and the judgment and decree have become final. The contention put forward by Gopalakrishnan Nair that he was not made a party to that suit and one Gopalakrishna Pillai was made a party, was raised by him in W.P.(C) No. 9899 of 2008 and that contention was rejected. The Division Bench in W.P.(C) No. 9899 of 2008 noticed that the W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 **==> picture [38 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** judgment and decree in O.S.No.193 of 1995 became final and that if the contention of Gopalakrishnan Nair is that the decree was obtained by fraud, he should establish the same in appropriate proceedings. It is well settled that the principles of res judicata applies with respect to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Vide **Forward Construction Co. and others** v. **Prabhat Mandal, Andheri and others** (AIR 1986 SC 391), **Direct Recruitment Class II Engineering Officers Association** v. **State of Maharashtra and others** ((1990) 2 SCC 715) and **Union of India** v. **Manak Singh** (AIR 1968 SC 1370)). 13. The decree passed in O.S.No.193 of 1995 would indicate that there is no pathway in between the property of Sreedharan Nair and Gopalakrishnan Nair. Moreover, a decree for mandatory injunction was granted in O.S.No.193 of 1995, directing Gopalakrishnan Nair to restore the compound wall on the boundary separating the property of Sreedharan Nair and Gopalakrishnan Nair. In execution of the decree in O.S.No.193 of 1995, the compound wall was restored to its original position. In spite of restoration of the compound wall, the proceedings in execution of the W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 **==> picture [38 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** decree in O.S.No.193 of 1995 would clearly indicate that the compound wall was demolished by Gopalakrishnan Nair. It was again restored in the presence of the Commissioner. The compound wall was again demolished by Gopalakrishnan Nair and as per Ext.P15 order dated 27.11.2007, the decree holder was permitted to construct the compound wall at the expenses of the judgment debtor. The executing court found in Ext.P15 order thus: “It is proved that compound wall put up on 22.1.2005 through the process of this court is demolished by the men of judgment debtor and judgment debtor is using the portion of decree schedule property to get into his property which is wilful disobedience and against the decree passed by this court.” In W.P.(C) No.9899 of 2008 also, the Division Bench of this Court found that the decree was violated by Gopalakrishnan Nair. 14. It is well settled that when there is a conflict between survey numbers, extent and boundaries, the boundaries will prevail. (See **Kumaran Krishnan** v. **Ulahannan Mathai** (1957 KLT 42); **Chacko Joseph** v. **Varghese Markose** (1957 KLT 485); W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 :: 24 :: ## **Krishnamurthy Iyer** v. **Janaki Amma** (1957 KLT 886) and **Velu and** **3 others** v. **Padmavathy Amma and another** (1983 KLN 38 Case No.39.)) The decree in O.S.No.193 of 1995 would clearly show the boundaries of the plaint schedule property therein. On the southern side of the plaint schedule property, the property of Gopalakrishnan Nair is situated. The decree in O.S.No.193 of 1995 does not indicate that a pathway exists in between the property of Sreedharan Nair and Gopalakrishnan Nair. Had the civil court found that a pathway existed in between the two properties, the decree in O.S.No.193 of 1995 would not have been passed granting the decree for mandatory injunction prayed for by the plaintiff therein. So long as the decree in O.S.No.193 of 1995 stands, it has to be respected and implemented in its full force. The decree was implemented with police aid. Several proceedings had to be initiated to put the decree in execution. After that exercise was done, it would appear that Gopalakrishnan Nair approached the Deputy Director of Surveys, who passed Ext.P8 order dated 28.10.2008, upsetting Ext.P6 order dated 17.3.2003 passed by the Assistant Director of Surveys. Ext.P8 order passed by the Deputy Director was set aside by this Court in W.P.(C) No.32575 of 2008 by the judgment dated 29.1.2010 and the matter was directed to be reconsidered. Thereafter, on W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 **==> picture [38 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 5.4.2010, the Deputy Director passed Ext.P11 order, which is under challenge in W.P.(C) No.13746 of 2010. The Deputy Director has, in the impugned order, made a discussion, which in effect nullifies the decree passed by the civil court in O.S.No.193 of 1995. The survey authorities are bound to respect the decree passed by the civil court and they cannot pass an order deviating from the decree passed by the civil court. The proceedings before the survey authorities cannot be taken as a tool to get over a decree passed by the competent civil court. That the civil court decree was made available before the survey authorities is clear from Ext.P6 order dated 17.3.2003 passed by the Assistant Director of Resurveys. That order was challenged before the Deputy Director of Surveys, who passed Ext.P11 order. The Assistant Director of Surveys passed Ext.P6 order dated 17.3.2003 in consonance with the decree passed by the civil court in O.S.No.193 of 1995. 15. The proceedings under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated at the instance of Lalithakumary, wife of Gopalakrishnan Nair (respondent No.6 in W.P.(C) No.13746 of 2010), which resulted in Ext.P12 order dated 21.4.2010. The Executive Magistrate directed Ashadevi, wife of Sreedharan Nair ## W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 **==> picture [38 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** (second petitioner in W.P.(C) No.13746 of 2010) to demolish the compound wall. This direction in Ext.P12 order dated 21.4.2010 is quite contrary to the judgment and decree in O.S.No.193 of 1995. In effect, the Executive Magistrate has upset the decree passed by the civil court and which was duly executed by a long drawn process. In **Abdul Azeez** v. **Pappu** (1986 KLT 288), this Court held that the Sub Divisional Magistrate acting under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is bound to respect even an interlocutory order passed by the civil court. In the case on hand, O.S.No.193 of 1995 was disposed of by the civil court and a decree was passed in favour of Sreedharan Nair. That decree has become final. The Executive Magistrate was not justified in initiating proceedings under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contrary to the decree passed by the civil court. 16. It was made clear in W.P.(C) No.9899 of 2008 that Gopalakrishnan Nair and his wife Lalithakumary could take appropriate proceedings before the civil court to get a declaration that the decree in O.S.No.193 of 1995 was obtained by fraud. So long as the decree passed by the civil court is not set aside, it is binding on the parties to the suit and persons claiming under them. ## W.P.(C) NOS.13746 AND 14605 OF 2010 **==> picture [38 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** They are not entitled to bypass the decree by approaching the survey officials and the Executive Magistrate and those authorities do not have jurisdiction to pass any order which in effect nullifies the binding decision of the civil court. For the aforesaid reasons, W.P.(C) No.13746 of 2010 is allowed and Exts.P11 and P12 orders (order dated 5.4.2010 passed by the Deputy Director of Survey, Kollam and the order dated 21.4.2010 passed by the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) are quashed. For the same reasons, W.P.(C) No.14605 of 2010 is dismissed. **(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge** ahz/