Radhakrishnan vs * 1 The Revenue Divisional ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4305 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

     FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 16TH MAGHA,1942

                      W.P.(C) No.27693 OF 2020(J)


PETITIONER:

               RADHAKRISHNAN,
               AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE P.N.BHASKARAN,
               AMRUTHALAYAM,
               THIRUNALLOOR P.O., CHERTHALA,
               ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 536.

               BY ADV. SMT.G.VIDYA

RESPONDENTS:

    * 1        THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER(CORRECTED)
               DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIATE,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

          *    CORRECTED AS:
               REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
               OPPOSITE TO DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX,
               SH-40, THONDANKULANGARA,
               ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 013.
               (THE DESCRIPTION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN THE
               CAUSE TITLE IS SUO MOTU CORRECTED AS PER ORDER
               DATED 05.02.2021 IN W.P.(C) NO.27693 OF 2020).

      2        THAHASILDAR (REVENUE),
               TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA TALUK,
               ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 524.

      3        VILLAGE OFFICER,
               PALLIPURAM VILLAGE, PALLIPURAM,
               CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 541.

      R1-R3    SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.27693 OF 2020(J)
                                    -2-


                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus

commanding the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on

Ext.P1 application in respect of the property in Sy.No.19/1 A2,

Ext.P2 application in respect of the property in Sy.No.19/1 A1,

Ext.P3 application in respect of the property in Sy.No.19/1 and

21/2A and Ext.P4 application in respect of the property in

Sy.No.19/1 and 21/2A of Pallipuram Village, which are applications

filed by the petitioner's father late P.N.Bhaskaran, seeking

mutation of the said properties originally owned by his brother

late Ramakrishnan, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus

commanding the 2nd respondent to provide the service of Taluk

Surveyor and measure the property based on Ext.P6 report dated

09.02.2016, within a period of one month.

2. On 15.12.2020, when this writ petition came up for

admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get

instructions.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also W.P.(C) No.27693 OF 2020(J)

the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on

instructions, would submit that the 3 rd respondent is the authority

competent to consider Exts.P1 to P4 applications, who 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 Exts.P1 to P4 applications may be with notice

to the petitioner.

6. Having considered the pleadings and materials on

record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on

both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2 nd

respondent to consider Exts.P1 to P4 applications and take an

appropriate decision on those applications, with notice to the

petitioner, other legal heirs of late P.N.Bhaskaran and also legal

heirs, if any, of late Ramakrishnan, the original owner, and after

affording them an opportunity of being heard, within three months

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, after

complying with all statutory requirements. W.P.(C) No.27693 OF 2020(J)

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 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 bpr W.P.(C) No.27693 OF 2020(J)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR THE PROPERTY IN SY.NO.19/1 A2.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR THE PROPERTY IN SY.NO.19/1 A1.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR THE PROPERTY IN SY.NO.19/1 & 21/2A.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE PROPERTY IN SY.NO.19/1 & 21/2A.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO.397/15, DATED 24.11.2015.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF REPORT NO.44/16, DATED 09.02.2016.

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 29.06.2016.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL