Kerala High Court
Akbar Badhusha vs The District Collector on 10 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST
MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.22905 OF 2020(K)
PETITIONER:
AKBAR BADHUSHA
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O.RUKIYA, MATTANCHERY P.O., KOCHI-2, NOW
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.12/1422, PANAYAPPILLY,
KOCHI-682002.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS
SRI.RENISH RAVEENDRAN
SMT.THAMANA BAI
SHRI.JOSEPH C.V.(CHELAKKATT)
SRI.JOEMON ANTONY
SHRI.LIGISH XAVIER
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM-682030.
2 THE TAHSILDAR
KOCHI TALUK, GROUND FLOOR, KB JACOB ROAD,
FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-682001.
THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT IS
SUO MOTU CORRECTED AS 'TAHSILDAR(LR),
KOCHI TALUK, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-682001.
(AS PER ORDER DATED 10-02-2021 IN WP(C)
22905/2020).
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MATTANCHERY VILLAGE OFFICE, MATTANCHERY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-682002.
SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 10.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.22905 OF 2020
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is stated to be one of the legal
heirs of Pandikasalapparambil Usman Bin Muhammed,
who was in ownership and possession of 11.04 Ares of
property in Survey No.570/1, 20 sq.meters in Survey
No.1695 and 20 sq.meters in Survey No.570/3 of
Mattanchery Village in Kochi Taluk, has filed this writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2
and 3 to accept basic tax from him and other legal heirs
of Pandikasalapparambil Usman Bin Muhammed. The
petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus
commanding respondents 2 and 3 to complete the
proceedings in connection with Ext.P7 representation
within a time frame. The document marked as Ext.P1 is
the relevant extract of basic tax register, as per which
mutation of property in the name of the petitioner's
predecessor had been effected by the 3rd respondent
Village Officer.
2. On 27.12.2020, when this writ petition came
up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was
W.P.(C)No.22905 OF 2020
directed to get instructions.
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 2 nd respondent
Tahasildar (LR) has received Ext.P7 application made by
the petitioner, as evidenced by Ext.P7A receipt dated
22.06.2020, which has already been forwarded to the 3 rd
respondent Village Officer for necessary action and the
same is pending consideration. The 3 rd respondent will
take an appropriate decision on that application, after
complying with the statutory requirements, within a time
limit to be fixed by this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that consideration of Ext.P7 by the 3 rd respondent
may be with notice to the petitioner and other legal heirs
of Pandikasalapparambil Usman Bin Muhammed.
6. Having considered the submissions made by
the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is
disposed of by directing the 3rd respondent Village Office
W.P.(C)No.22905 OF 2020
to consider Ext.P7 application made by the petitioner and
pass appropriate orders thereon, with notice to the
petitioner and other legal heirs of Pandikasalapparambil
Usman Bin Muhammed 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 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.
Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this
judgment, the 3rd respondent Village Officer shall take an
W.P.(C)No.22905 OF 2020
appropriate decision in the matter, strictly in accordance
with law, taking note of the relevant statutory provisions
and also the law on the point.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
AV/05/02
W.P.(C)No.22905 OF 2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX
REGISTER ENTRY WHICH SHOWS THE
MUTATION IN THE NAME OF THE
PETITIONER'S PREDECESSOR
PANDIKASALAPPARAMBIL USMAN BIN
MUHAMMED IN 3RD RESPONDENT VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF
SETTLEMENT REGISTER ISSUED FROM THE
OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTARIZED
POWER OF ATTORNEY.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF A ROUGH SKETCH-
CHART WHICH SHOWS THE DETAILS OF
LEGAL HEIRS OF DISEASED
PREDECESSOR.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE DATED 16.8.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 A THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED
25.5.2020.
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH
WHICH SHOWS THE PATHETIC CONDITION
OF THE BUILDING.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 22.6.2020.
EXHIBIT P7 A THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
22.6.2020.
