This document is a court judgment from the High Court of Kerala regarding a petition filed by Dr. Thomas Mattathil seeking alteration of the recorded area in survey records of his land. The court examined reports submitted by survey officials and found that the excess land claimed by the petitioner is within the physical boundaries of his property and will not affect neighboring owners. The court directed the District Collector to sanction the alteration in survey records in accordance with relevant rules, and the Tahsildar to effect transfer of registry in favor of the petitioner.

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
THURSDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF JULY 2020 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1942
WP(C).No.2424 OF 2020(C)
PETITIONER:
DR. THOMAS MATTATHIL, AGED 70 YEARS,
S/O.ULAHANNAN THOMAS, MATTATHIL HOUSE,
KIZHAPARAYAR P.O., POOVARANI VILLAGE,
MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.K.SOYUZ
SRI.E.V.BABYCHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682
030.
2 THE TAHSILDAR(LR), TALUK OFFICE MUVATTUPUZHA,
MUDAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNKAULAM
DISTRICT, PIN-686 669.
3 THE DISTRICT SURVEY superintendentENT,
ERNAKULAM,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682
030.
4 THE HEAD SURVEYOR, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,
TALUK OFFICE MUVATTUPUZHA, MUDAVOOR P.O.,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 669.
5 THE TALUK SURVEYOR,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK (IN CHARGE OF MARADY
VILLAGE), TALUK OFFICE MUVATTUPUZHA, MUDAVOOR
P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-
686 669.

2. WP(C).No.2424 OF 2020(C)
..2..
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MARADY VILLAGE,
MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-
686 661.
R1-6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
K J MOHAMED ANZAR SPL GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 02.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

3. WP(C).No.2424 OF 2020(C)
..3..
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 2nd day of July 2020
This matter is related to the alteration of recorded areas in survey
records. The District Collector passed an order after adverting to the
report of the Head Surveyor of Survey and Land Records and the
Tahsildar (LR).
2. The District Collector rejected the request stating that the
petitioner has no records to claim the excess land. The District Collector
considered the matter based on the direction of this Court in
W.P.(C)No.7717/2019. This Court directed the District Collector to
consider Ext.P5 application and thereafter to effect the transfer of
registry in terms of Rule 28 of the Transfer of Registry Rules.
3. The point for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is
entitled to area alteration.
4. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer the report of the Head
Surveyor of Survey and Land Records produced as Exts.P6 and P7. In
Ext.P6 report, the Head Surveyor of Survey and Land Records reported

4. WP(C).No.2424 OF 2020(C)
..4..
that invoking Rule 61 of the Survey and Boundary Rules, 1964, (for
short the “Rules”) the alteration can be effected. The Head Surveyor of
Survey and Land Records also gave reasons for such alteration.
According to him, the property is within the physical boundaries and the
neighbouring owners are not affected by such alteration. The Tahsildar
also recommended for alteration.
5. When there is a conflict between the boundary and extent,
the boundary will prevail. The report itself clearly indicates that the
petitioner is holding the entire extent of the land. It is also stated that no
neighbouring owner will be affected on account of such alteration.
6. The Surveys and Boundary Rules, 1964 contemplate the
procedure for the alteration of the recorded areas. Rule 60 of the Rules
says that when ever the correction of measurements involves a change in
the existing area of the field or sub division by more than five percent,
the area in the memorandum of alteration shall be checked and certified
as correct by the superintendent of Survey and Land Records of the
district and the district collector shall be competent authority to sanction
the alteration of area. Thereafter, the Rule was amended. The amended

5. WP(C).No.2424 OF 2020(C)
..5..
Rule was produced as Ext.P8. The amendment came in the year 2017.
This Rule enables the Head Surveyor of Survey and Land Records
instead of the superintendent of Survey and Land Records, to certify
correction.
7. In the light of the clear finding that the excess land is
bounded within the physical boundary, the District Collector could not
have rejected it stating that the petitioner had no title to it. As already
noted when there is a conflict between the extent shown in a document
and the boundaries, the boundaries would prevail.
8. The order passed by the District Collector is set aside. It is
also relevant to point out Ext.P16 recommendation given by the District
Survey superintendent to the District Collector for effecting such
alteration in the light of the report of the Head Surveyor of Survey and
Land Records and the Tahsildar. Consequent upon the rejection by the
District Collector, the Tahsildar also rejected the petitioner's claim by
Ext.P17 order. In view of the fact that the Head Surveyor of Survey and
Land Records is the competent authority in terms of rule 61 of the Rule
and the fact that the Head Surveyor of Survey and Land Records and the

6. WP(C).No.2424 OF 2020(C)
..6..
Tahsildar have already approved the alteration of the recorded areas, the
District Collector shall accord necessary sanction in terms of Rule 60 of
the Rules to effect the necessary alteration in the survey records.
Accordingly the impugned orders are set aside.
9. The District Collector shall grant sanction within one month
and consequently, the Tahsildar is directed to effect transfer of registry
under Rule 28 of the Transfer of Registry Rules in favour of the
petitioner without any further delay thereon.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
PR

7. WP(C).No.2424 OF 2020(C)
..7..
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO.4507/1979 OF MUVATTUPUZHA SRO DATED
22.12.1979.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO.4503/1979 OF MUVATTUPUZHA SRO DATED
22.12.1979.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO.2480/1985 OF MUVATTUPUZHA SRO DATED
20.06.1985.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
01.12.2016.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
05.04.2017.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
28.02.2018 OF THE 4TTH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION
FORWARDED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT DATED 09.07.2018.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
GO(P) 70/2017/RD DATED 24.11.2017.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SENT TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.01.2019.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
NO.7717 OF 2019 DATED 02.07.2019.

8. WP(C).No.2424 OF 2020(C)
..8..
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
30.07.2019 IN WPC NO.7717 OF 2019.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F4
16165/2016 DATED 22.01.2018 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE AREA ALTERATION
MEMORANDUM IN FORM NO.97 OF SURVEY
MANUAL ALONG WITH THE REVISED SKETH
AND AREA CALCULATION STATEMENT.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F4
16165/2016 DATED 13.11.2019 SENT BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER SENT
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DISTRICT
COLLECTOR DATED 21.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE OPINION LETTER NO.G1-
4974/2019 DATED 22.11.2019 SENT BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.D2-
774/19 DATED 14.11.2019 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN COC NO.2371
OF 2019 DATED 26.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.DCEKM/9887/2017-L16 DATED
30.11.2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.