Kerala High Court
Prasannan Unnithan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 1 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942
W.P.(C) No.2437 OF 2021(D)
PETITIONER/S:
PRASANNAN UNNITHAN
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNAN UNNITHAN, PEZHUMVILA VEETTIL, MEEYANA,
VELINELLOOR VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM)
SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PUNALOOR
PIN-691 305.
2 THE TAHASILDAR (LAND RECORDS),
KOTTARAKKARA-691 506.
3 DY.TAHASILDAR,
KOTTARAKKARA-691 506.
4 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM-695 001.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI SUNIL NATH N.B- GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.2437 OF 2021(D)
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash
Exts.P1 order dated 03.06.2019 issued by the 2 nd respondent
Tahsildar (Land Records), Exts.P8 (a) to P8 (e) revenue recovery
notices dated 16.07.2020 issued under Section 7 of the Revenue
Recovery Act, 1968 and Exts.P9(a) to P9 (e) demand notices dated
16.07.2020 issued under Section 34 of the said Act. The petitioner
has also sought for a direction to the 1 st respondent Revenue
Divisional Officer to consider Ext.P5 appeal dated 10.07.2019 filed
by the petitioner and also Ext.P7 application dated 25.06.2020
submitted before the said respondent, in accordance with law and
within a time limit to be fixed by this Court; a direction to the 3 rd
respondent Deputy Tahsildar not to proceed with the revenue
recovery proceedings pursuant to Exts.P8 (a) to P8 (e) and
Exts.P9(a) to P9 (e), pending disposal of Ext.P5 appeal filed
before the 1st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer.
2. The petitioner owns land in Survey No.43/10 in Block
No.37 of Velinelloor Village. The grievance of the petitioner is delay
in consideration of Ext.P5 appeal dated 10.07.2019 filed by the
petitioner under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Kerala Land Conservancy
W.P.(C) No.2437 OF 2021(D)
Act, 1957 against Ext.P1 order dated 03.06.2019 of the 2nd
respondent Tahsildar (Land Records) and also Ext.P7
representation dated 25.06.2020 submitted before the said
respondent.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also
the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1
to 4.
4. The learned Government Pleader would submit that
Ext.P5 appeal dated 10.07.2019 filed by the petitioner, against
Ext.P1 order dated 03.06.2019 issued by the 2 nd respondent
Tahsildar (Land Records), is pending consideration and the 1 st
respondent Revenue Divisional Officer will consider the same and
pass appropriate orders thereon within a time limit to be fixed by
this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
consideration of Ext.P5 appeal may be with a notice to the
petitioner.
6. Having considered the submission made by the learned
counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of, leaving
open the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner, by
directing the 1st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to consider
W.P.(C) No.2437 OF 2021(D)
and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 appeal dated 10.07.2019
filed by the petitioner, with notice to the petitioner and after
affording him an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall
move an interlocutory application under Section 16 (7) of the
Kerala Land Conservancy Act in Ext.P5 appeal to suspend the
execution of Ext.P1 order, if not already moved, in which event,
the 1st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer shall consider the
same and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of two
weeks.
7. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC
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.
W.P.(C) No.2437 OF 2021(D)
8. Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this
judgment, the 1st 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.2437 OF 2021(D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
03.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
23.12.2014 OBTAINED BY ONE MR.JAYAN
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
21.06.2019.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
27.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED
10.07.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
23.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
25.06.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 (A) TO P8 TRUE COPIES OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY
(E) NOTICES DATED 16.07.2020 ISSUED UNDER
SECTION 7 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.
EXHIBIT P9(A) TO TRUE COPIES OF THE DEMAND NOTICES DATED
P9(E) 16.07.2020 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 34 OF
THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT.
