Elsy Jose vs The Tahsildar
2021 Latest Caselaw 11333 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

  THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 18TH CHAITHRA,
                           1943

                   WP(C).No.5617 OF 2021(B)


PETITIONER:

              ELSY JOSE,
              AGED 72 YEARS
              W/O. JOSE, PUTHUR HOUSE,
              ALLESE CENTRE,
              P. O. MANAKKODY,
              THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 012.

              BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV

RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE TAHSILDAR, (*SUO MOTU CORRECTED)
              OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR,
              COLLECTORATE,
              AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680 003.

              *THE DESCRIPTION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS SUO
              MOTU CORRECTED AS 'TAHSILDAR (LR)'AS PER
              ORDER DATED 08-04-2021 IN WP(C)5617/2021.

     2        THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
              VILLAGE OFFICE,
              MANAAKKODY - 680 012.

     3        ARIMPUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
              ARIMPUR P. O,
              THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 620,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

              R3 - SRI. G. SANTHOSHKUMAR, SC, ARIMBUR GRAMA
              PANCHAYAT, THRISSUR
              SMT. K. AMMINIKUTTY - SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP          FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME          DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C).No.5617 OF 2021

                                2

                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is the owner in possession of 11 cents

and 3 cents of property in Survey Nos.47/2 and 47/5 as per

Ext.P1 settlement deed bearing No.7298/2007 of the Sub

Registrar Office, Ayyanthole, has filed this writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of

mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Tahsildar (LR) to

consider and finalise the application with file No.1065/20 made

by the petitioner for measurement and demarcation of the

boundaries of her property, within a time frame to be fixed by

this Court. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of

mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to permit her to

construct shop room in the said property during the pendency of

the application for measurement.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also

the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for

respondents 1 and 2 and also the learned Standing Counsel for

the 3rd respondent Grama Panchayat.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that, the application with file No.1065/20 is one filed by the W.P(C).No.5617 OF 2021

petitioner under Rule 43 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries

Rules, 1964, in Form No.10. The said application is pending

consideration before the 1st respondent Tahsildar (LR), which

requires a time bound disposal, considering the fact that the

petitioner is a senior citizen aged 72 years.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit

that, in case aforesaid application submitted by the petitioner is

in order, the 1st respondent shall dispose of the same in

accordance with law with notice to the petitioner and other

affected parties, if any, within a time limit to be fixed by this

Court.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of

directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the application made

by the petitioner with file No.1065/20, under Rule 43 of the

Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules, 1964, with notice to the

petitioner and other affected parties, if any, within a period of

two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment.

6. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC W.P(C).No.5617 OF 2021

309] the Apex Court held that no mandamus can be issued to

direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of

law or to do something which is contrary to law. In Bhaskara

Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259] the Apex Court

reiterated that, generally, no Court has competence to issue a

direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to

act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are

meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or

directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law.

7. Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this

judgment, the 1st respondent shall take necessary action in the

matter, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the

relevant statutory provisions and also the law on the point.

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE SPR W.P(C).No.5617 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.

7298/2007 OF AYYANTHOLE S.R.O.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO 1200100536/GO80905 DATED 04.11.2020 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.11.2020 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT PAGE MADE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:       NIL.