Noufal.A vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 4845 Ker

                 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

                        W.P.(C) No.2225 OF 2021(C)


PETITIONER/S:

                NOUFAL.A.
                AGED 32 YEARS
                S/O.M.M.ASIM, RESIDING AT GREEN SHARE HOUSE,
                MEENADU VILLAGE, CHATHANOOR DESOM, KOLLAM TALUK,
                KOLLAM.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
                SRI.B.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN
                SRI.B.N.HASKAR

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE OF KERALA
                REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
                REVENUE AND SURVEY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
                695 001

      2         THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
                COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

      3         THE TAHSILDAR
                CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, CHIRAYINKEEZHU,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 101

      4         THE VILLAGE OFFICER
                PAZHAYAKUNNUMMAL, KILIMANOOR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 101


OTHER PRESENT:

                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.2225 OF 2021(C)

                                       2


                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who has purchased property having an extent of

6 ares 88 square meter in Survey No.195/3/1, 195/3-B (Resurvey

Block No.32) of Pazhayakunnumel Village covered by Ext.P1 sale

deed No.490/2019 dated 18.03.2019 of Sub Registrar Office,

Kilimanoor, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the

3rd respondent Tahsildar and 4th respondent Village Officer to process

the application of pokku-varavu (transfer of registry) submitted by

the petitioner within a time frame as fixed by this Court and to make

necessary mutation in the revenue records. The petitioner has also

sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 4 th respondent

Village Officer to dispose Ext.P4 application dated 15.11.2020, within

a time frame as fixed by this Court.

2. On 28.01.2021, 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 the

learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. The relief sought for in Ext.P4 application dated

15.11.2020, made by the petitioner is one for effecting mutation of W.P.(C) No.2225 OF 2021(C)

the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed dated 18.03.2019 and also

to accept land tax.

5. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would

submit that the mutation of the property, based on Ext.P4 application

made by petitioner has already been effected on 14.09.2020.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

now what remains is acceptance of land tax, based on the request

made in Ext.P4 application.

7. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the

request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 application for acceptance of

land tax will be considered by the 4 th respondent Village Officer, in

accordance with law, within a period of four weeks.

8. Having considered the submission made by the learned

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

4th respondent Village Officer to take an appropriate decision on the

request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4 application to accept land

tax in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed bearing

No.490/2019 dated 18.03.2019, which has already been mutated in

the name of the petitioner on 14.09.2020, within a period of four

weeks.

9. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC W.P.(C) No.2225 OF 2021(C)

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.

10. Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this

judgment, the 4th 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.2225 OF 2021(C)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.490/2019 DATED 18.3.2019 OF KILIMANOOR SRO.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2100 DATED 17.6.2010 OF KILIMANOOR SRO.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 30.7.2018

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REMINDER APPLICATION FOR POKKU-VARAVU DATED 15.11.2020