Kerala High Court
V.Narayana Pillai And Company vs The Village Officer on 2 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.628 OF 2021(C)
PETITIONER/S:
1 V.NARAYANA PILLAI AND COMPANY
THATTASSERY, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT
PIN 691 583 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
PARTNER SUJITH V
2 SUJITH V, MANAGING PARTNER,
V. NARAYANA PILLAI AND COMPANY,
THATTASSERY, CHAVARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT
PIN 691 583 RESIDING AT VIJAYA SREE,
MUNKUNDAPURAM, P.O CHAVARA,
KOLLAM DISTRICT PIN 691 585
BY ADV. SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE OFFICE, SASTHAMCOTTA,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 688 561
2 ADDL R2, L.SUMA DEVI
W/O.LATE N.VIJAYAN PILLA, VIJAYASREE,
MUKUNDAPURAM P.O, CHAVARA, KOLLAM-691 585
3 ADDL R3, SREEJITH VIJAYAN,
S/O LATE N.VIJAYAN PILLAI, VIJAYASREE,
MUKUNDAPURAM P.O, CHAVARA, KOLLAM 691 585.
-2-
W.P.(C). No. 628 of 2021
4 ADDL R4, SREELEKSHMI.S.
D/O.LATE.N.VIJAYAN PILLAI, VIJAYASREE,
MUKUNDAPURAM, P.O, CHAVARA, KOLLAM 691 585.
ADDL R2 TO R4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 02-02-21 IN IA 1/21 IN WP(C)628/2021.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI P.U SHAILAJAN- R2 TO R4 ; SMT A.C.VIDHYA
- GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
W.P.(C). No. 628 of 2021
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondent to issue a possession certificate
with regard to 33.75 Ares of property in R.Sy.No.61/2 and
4.85 Ares in R.Sy.No.61/1, Block No.13 with Thandaper
No.2745 in Sasthamcotta Village, covered by registered
document Nos.33/95, 4594/96 and 1746/98 of the Sub
Registrar Office, Sasthamcotta, in the name of the 2 nd
petitioner representing the 1st petitioner firm, in tune with
Ext.P3 possession certificate. The petitioners have also sought
for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st respondent to
accept the land tax in the name of the 2 nd petitioner
representing the 1st petitioner firm, with respect to the said
property.
2. The petitioners have filed I.A No.1 of 2021 seeking
an order to implead the legal heirs of late Vijayan Pillai, other
than the 2nd petitioner, as additional respondents 2 to 4 and
that application is allowed by a separate order dated
W.P.(C). No. 628 of 2021
02.02.2021. Late Vijayan Pillai is the former managing partner
of the 1st petitioner firm
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent
Village Officer and also the learned counsel for the additional
respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the additional respondents
2 to 4 would submit that the said respondents have no
objection in a possession certificate being issued in the name
of the 2nd petitioner.
5. The learned Government Pleader would submit that
the 1st respondent Village Officer shall consider Ext.P5
application made by the 2nd petitioner for possession
certificate, after hearing the petitioners and also additional
respondents 2 to 4, within a time limit to be fixed by this
Court.
6. Having considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of
by directing the 1st respondent Village Officer to consider and
W.P.(C). No. 628 of 2021
pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 application made by the 2 nd
petitioner for possession certificate, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, with notice
to the petitioners and also additional respondents 2 to 4.
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.
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
W.P.(C). No. 628 of 2021
note of the relevant statutory provisions and also the law on
the point.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN
JUDGE
das
W.P.(C). No. 628 of 2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED
DATED 12-03-2020 EXECUTED BETWEEN SRI
S RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI AND OTHERS
EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM A ISSUED BY
REGISTRAR OF FIRMS DATED 06-06-2020
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 35/99 OF
SASTHAMCOTTA SRO DATED 4-1-1999
EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 4594/96
OF SASTHAMCOTTA SRO DATED 31-12-1996
EXHIBIT P2B TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 1746/98
OF SASTHAMCOTTA SRO DATED 8-4-1998
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESION CERTIFICATE
DATED 30-12-2016 ISSUED FROM THE
SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE OFFICE IN THE
NAME OF N. VIJAYAN PILLAI
