M.P. Subrahmanian vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 4375 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

                      WP(C).No.21541 OF 2020(P)


PETITIONER/S:

                M.P. SUBRAHMANIAN, AGED 72 YEARS
                S/O. M.P.PADMANABHAN, METHASSERY HOUSE,
                PUTHUVYPU, KOCHI TALUK, PIN-682508.

                BY ADVS.
                SHRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS
                SHRI.JOSEPH C.V.(CHELAKKATT)
                SMT.THAMANA BAI
                SRI.RENISH RAVEENDRAN
                SRI.JOEMON ANTONY
                SHRI.LIGISH XAVIER

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
                COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
                KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.

      2         THE TAHSILDAR,
                KOCHI TALUK, GROUND FLOOR, KB JACOB ROAD,
                FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-682001.

      3         THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
                VILLAGE OFFICE, PUHTUVYPU, VYPEEN,
                ERNAKULAM, PIN-682508.


OTHER PRESENT:

                SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY - SR 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.21541 OF 2020(P)

                                       -2-

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is a senior citizen aged 72 years, has

filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2 nd

respondent Tahsildar and also the 3rd respondent Village Officer

to effect mutation in respect of the property having an extent of

10 cents covered by Ext.P1 sale deed dated 26.07.1993 bearing

No.2261/93 executed by the Munsiff's Court, Kochi. The

petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding

the 2nd respondent Tahsildar to consider Ext.P7 application dated

08.09.2020 and effect mutation.

2. On 13.10.2020 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 the

learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1

to 3.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader on

instructions would submit that the 2nd respondent Tahsildar will W.P(C).No.21541 OF 2020(P)

consider and take an appropriate decision on Ext.P7 application

made by the petitioner to effect mutation of the property covered

by Ext.P1 sale deed dated 26.07.1993, within a period of two

months.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that consideration of that application may be with notice to the

petitioner.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the

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

directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate

orders on Ext.P7 application, if that application is in order and

the same is pending consideration, with notice to the petitioner

and other affected parties, if any, and after affording them 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.

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 W.P(C).No.21541 OF 2020(P)

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

on 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.

bkn/-

W.P(C).No.21541 OF 2020(P)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE LEARNED MUNSIFF IN THE SUIT DATED 26.7.1993.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY RECEIPT.

EXHIBIT P2(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 23.4.2015.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF LEGAL RELATIONSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 25.2.1990.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE DATED 16.12.2017.

EXHIBIT P5               TRUE COPY OF SKETCH.

EXHIBIT P6               THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
                         12.5.2015.

EXHIBIT P7               THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
                         8.9.2020.

EXHIBIT P7A              THE TRUE      COPY   OF   THE   RECEIPT   DATED
                         8.9.2020.