Sarojini C.P vs The Village Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 5398 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

     MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942

                      W.P.(C) No.3824 OF 2021(C)

PETITIONER:

               SAROJINI C.P.,
               AGED 68 YEARS, W/O. NARAYANAN C.P,
               CHEERAMPUTHOOR HOUSE,
               EDAPPETTA, MALAPPURAM, PIN-679 326.

               BY ADV. SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P).

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
               EDAPPETTA VILLAGE OFFICE,
               EAPPETTA P.O., MALAPPURAM-679 325.

      2        THE TAHSILDAR,
               PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
               MALAPPURAM-679 321.

      R1&R2    SMT.VIDHYA A.C., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.3824 OF 2021(C)
                                  -2-


                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner in possession of

16.59 Ares of land in Sy.No.179/2C along with a building situated in

Edappetta Village of Perinthalmanna Taluk in Malappuram District,

has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st respondent

to consider Ext.P6 application dated 05.01.2021 and finalise the

proceedings in a time bound manner, in the light of Ext.P1 tax

receipt dated 17.09.2019, Ext.P2 tax receipt dated 22.09.2020,

Ext.P3 possession certificate dated 06.01.2021 issued by the 1 st

respondent Village Officer and Ext.P4 building tax receipt dated

22.09.2020 issued by Edappetta Grama Panchayath, after affording

her an opportunity of being heard and also taking note of the fact

that she is a senior citizen. The petitioner has also sought for a writ

of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Tahsildar to ensure

that the 1st respondent finalises Ext.P6 in a time bound manner,

without any further delay.

2. The document marked as Exts.P1 and P2 are the tax

receipts dated 17.09.2019 and 22.09.2020 in respect of the

property in question. Ext.P3 is the possession certificate dated

06.01.2021 issued by the 1st respondent Village Officer, Edappetta W.P.(C) No.3824 OF 2021(C)

and Ext.P4 is the building tax receipt dated 22.09.2020 issued by

the Edappetta Grama Panchayath. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6

application dated 15.01.2021 for Record of Rights (ROR) before the

1st respondent Village Officer, Edappetta. According to the

petitioner, the said application is still pending consideration.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the

learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the

1st respondent Village Officer will consider and pass appropriate

orders on Ex.P6 application submitted by the petitioner, if it is in

order and pending consideration, within a time limit to be fixed by

this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

consideration of Ext.P6 application may be with notice to the

petitioner and after affording her a reasonable opportunity of being

heard.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned

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

1st respondent Village Officer to consider and pass appropriate

orders on Ext.P6 application, if it is in order and pending

consideration, with notice to the petitioner and after affording her W.P.(C) No.3824 OF 2021(C)

an opportunity of being heard, within a period of one month 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.

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

judgment, the 1st respondent Village Officer 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 bpr W.P.(C) No.3824 OF 2021(C)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 17.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPETTA.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 22.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER EDAPPETTA.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 06.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPPETTA.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 22.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE EDAPPETTA GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ROR SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05.01.2021.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL