Kerala High Court
Valsa Mathew vs The District Collector on 9 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943
W.P.(C) No.20233 OF 2020(D)
PETITIONER/S:
VALSA MATHEW,
AGED 62 YEARS,
W/O. MATHEW IDIKKULA,
ERAMALLADIYIL,
CHILAVANNUR ROAD,
KADAVANTRA,
ERNAKULAM-682020.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SAJI.P.JOSEPH
SRI.K.T.SAJU
SHRI.THANKARAJAN P.K.
SMT.G.MINI (PALATH)
SMT.A.SEENA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM-686001.
2 THE TAHSILDAR,
KOTTAYAM TALUK,
KOTTAYAM-686001.
THE DESCRIPTION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
IS SUO MOTU CORRECTED AS
TAHSILDAR (LR), KOTTAYAM TALUK,
KOTTAYAM - 686 001
AS PER ORDER DATED 31.03.2021
IN WP(C) NO. 20233/2020.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PANACHIKKAD VILLAGE,
PERUNNA,
KOTTAYAM-686102.
4 THE TALUK SURVEYOR,
KOTTAYAM TALUK,
KOTTAYAM-686001.
W.P.(C) No.20233 OF 2020(D)
2
5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PWD ROAD DIVISION,
PWD OFFICE COMPLEX,
KOTTAYAM-686001.
6 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PWD ROAD SUB DIVISION,
GANDHI NAGAR,
KOTTAYAM-686008.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.20233 OF 2020(D)
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is the owner in possession of 11.68 ares of
property comprised in Re.Survey No.105/7/13 in block No21 of
Panachikkad Village of Kottayam Taluk covered by Ext.P1 sale deed
bearing No.205/2007 of the Sub Registrar Office, Puthuppally, dated
24.01.2007 and Ext.P2 tax receipt dated 05.03.2019, has filed this writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of
mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Tahsildar (LR) to dispose of
Ext.P4 application dated 30.10.2019, on merits, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. The
petitioner has also sought for declaration that respondents have no
manner of right to interfere with the construction of the boundary wall
along the boundary of the property of the petitoner covered by Ext.P1,
as fixed by the 4th respondent pursuant to Ext.P3, in the interest of
justice. Ext.P4 application is one made by the petitioner for obtaining
the report and sketch of the 4 th respondent Taluk Surveyor, demarcating
the boundaries of the petitoner's registered holding, pursuant to the
direction contained in Ext.P3 judgment of this Court dated 19.03.2019 in
W.P.(C) No.7373 of 2019.
2. On 29.09.2020, when this writ petition came up for
admission, the learned Government Pleader sought time to get
instructions.
3. On 24.03.2021, the learned Government Pleader was
W.P.(C) No.20233 OF 2020(D)
directed to get instructions as to whether Ext.P4 application is still
pending consideration.
4. On 31.03.2021, the description of the 2 nd respondent was
suo motu corrected as Tahsildar (LR), Kottayam Taluk and Registry was
directed to carry out necessary correction in the cause tile.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the
learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would confine the
relief sought for in this writ petiton as one for time bound consideration
of Ext.P4 application made before the 2nd respondent Tahsildar (LR).
7. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions,
would submit Ext.P4 application dated 30.10.2019 made by the
petitioner is still pending consideration and that the 2 nd respondent
Tahsildar (LR) shall take an appropriate decision on that application with
notice to the petitioner.
8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the
2nd respondent Tahsildar (LR) to consider the request made by the
petitioner in Ext.P4 application dated 30.10.2019 and take an
appropriate decision, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment.
9. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309]
W.P.(C) No.20233 OF 2020(D)
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.
10. Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this
judgment, the 2nd respondent shall take an appropriate decision 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
MIN
W.P.(C) No.20233 OF 2020(D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.205/2007
OF SRO, PUTHUPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DATED
24/01/2007.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
05/03/2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN WPC
NO.7373/2019 DATED 19/03/2019.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
30/10/2019.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED
30/10/2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
05/12/2019
