Jessy Paul vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 4517 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

     MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 19TH MAGHA,1942

                      W.P.(C) No.19095 OF 2020(J)


PETITIONER/S:

                JESSY PAUL
                W/O.PAUL, VEZHAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KEERAMPARA VILLAGE,
                KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

                BY ADV. SRI.BINU PAUL

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
                DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
                PIN-695014.

      2         THE TAHSILDAR,
                TALUK OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686691.

      3         THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
                KEERAMPARA VILLAGE OFFICE, KEERAMPARA, PIN-686681.

      4         SECRETARY,
                KAVALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KAVALANGAD, NELLIMATTOM
                P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686693.

                R4 BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

OTHER PRESENT:

                SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY -SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.19095 OF 2020(J)

                                      2


                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is the owner in possession of 99.69 ares

of property comprised in Survey No.675/2 of Keerampara Village

covered by Ext.P1 sale deed No.2795 of 2003 dated 23.05.2003 of

the Sub Registrar Office, Kothamangalam, has filed this writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a

writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Village Officer

of Keerampara Village to issue possession certificate in respect of

the said property, in favour of the petitioner.

2. On 16.09.2020, when this writ petition came up for

admission, notice before admission was ordered to the

respondents. The learned Government Pleader took notice for

respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to

the 4th respondent, the Secretary of Kavalangad Grama Panchayat.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also

the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions,

would submit that the petitioner submitted an application for

possession certificate, as evidenced by Ext.P3 receipt dated

25.07.2020 issued by the office of the 3 rd respondent Village W.P.(C) No.19095 OF 2020(J)

Officer, which was returned on 28.07.2020, directing the petitioner

to resubmit the same along with the land tax receipt. Thereafter,

the petitioner never resubmitted that application. In case the

petitioner resubmits the said application along with land tax

receipt, the 3rd respondent will consider the same and take an

appropriate decision thereon, within a time limit to be fixed by this

Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the petitioner shall resubmit the aforesaid application along with

the land tax receipt, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a

certified copy of this judgment.

6. Having considered the submission made by the learned

counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing

the petitioner to resubmit the application for possession certificate,

as evidenced by Ext.P3 receipt dated 25.07.2020, along with the

land tax receipt, within a period of two weeks from the date of

receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the 3 rd

respondent Village Officer shall consider that application and take

an appropriate decision thereon, with a notice to the petitioner and

other affected parties, if any, as expeditiously as possible, at any

rate within a further period of one month. W.P.(C) No.19095 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 3rd 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.19095 OF 2020(J)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO.2795 OF 2003 DATED 23.05.2003 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 04.08.2020 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KEERAMPARA.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25.07.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.