Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

No Need to Hand Over Original Records When Copies of Approved FMB Are Available: Kerala High Court Upholds Resurvey Validity in Land Encroachment Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Kerala High Court today dismissed a writ petition that contested the legality of a resurvey conducted by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) regarding a land encroachment dispute. The Court upheld the resurvey’s validity, clarifying that copies of the original Field Measurement Book (FMB) were sufficient for the purpose, negating the need for original acquisition records.

The contention centered around the petitioner, Krishnan N.T., who alleged that the NHAI and associated respondents encroached beyond the designated boundaries set during the 1987 land acquisition for highway expansion. Conversely, the respondents maintained that the petitioner had removed original survey stones, thus encroaching on the highway land himself.

The core issue addressed the correctness of land boundaries post the 1987 acquisition and the legality of the resurvey operations conducted subsequently. The petitioner argued that the resurvey was flawed as it allegedly proceeded without the original records.

Land Ownership and Encroachment: The Court confirmed that the resurvey operations authenticated the original boundaries, asserting that “the availability of copies of approved FMB suffices, eliminating the need for original records” for resurvey purposes.

Validity of Resurvey Procedures: Justice Viju Abraham emphasized that “the resurvey was conducted in accordance with proper administrative procedures, utilizing available records and adhering to court directions.”

Judicial Review and Administrative Action: It was underscored that the administrative actions were compliant with prior judicial directives, leading to the rejection of the petitioner’s claims due to the absence of conclusive evidence of an improper resurvey.

Decision: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, confirming the validity of the resurvey conducted by the respondents. The petitioner was granted one month to appeal the decision while maintaining an interim order.

Date of Decision: April 19, 2024

Krishnan N.T. vs. The District Collector, Kozhikode & Others

Latest Legal News