Kerala High Court
G.Purushothaman vs The Village Officer on 9 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942
W.P.(C) No.1553 OF 2021(T)
PETITIONER/S:
G.PURUSHOTHAMAN
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O.GOVINDAN, PARATHIPARAMBIL, PALLANA MURI,
THRIKKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR
SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN
SMT.T.J.SEEMA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
THRIKKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA-690515.
2 THE TAHSILDAR,
OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK,
HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA-690532.
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY -SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.1553 OF 2021(T)
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is the owner in possession of 37.207
cents of land comprised in Survey No.2060A of Thrikkunnapuzha
Village, covered by Ext.P1 sale deed bearing No.1844/1973 dated
11.07.1973 and another extent of 20 cents with a residential
building in Survey No.2182/3 of Thrikkunnapuzha Village of
Karthikappilly Taluk, covered by sale deed No.223/1970 and Ext.P3
land tax receipt dated 6.12.1991, has filed this writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of
mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Tahsildar to consider
Ext.P5 representation dated 11.12.2014, filed by the petitioner.
2. On 20.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for
admission, the learned Government Pleader sought time to get
instructions as to whether Ext.P5 application made by the
petitioner is still pending consideration before the 2 nd respondent
Tahsildar.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also
the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
4. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would
submit that Ext.P5 application is still pending consideration before
the 2nd respondent Tahsildar and that, the said respondent will
take an appropriate decision on that application within a time limit
W.P.(C) No.1553 OF 2021(T)
to be specified by this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
consideration of that application 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 by directing
the 2nd respondent Tahsildar to consider and pass appropriate
orders on Ext.P5 application made by the petitioner dated
11.12.2014 and take an appropriate decision with notice to the
petitioner and other affected parties, if any, 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
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.1553 OF 2021(T)
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
MIN
W.P.(C) No.1553 OF 2021(T)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1844/1973
DATED 11.7.1973 IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTAYAM RECEIVED BY
ONE SREEKUMAR AS PER LAA NO.447/1972.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
6.12.1991 REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.2.1997.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
11.12.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 3.1.2018
OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
