MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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