Lissikutty vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 6399 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

 TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 4TH PHALGUNA,
                          1942

                   WP(C).No.559 OF 2021(T)

PETITIONER:

              LISSIKUTTY,AGED 58 YEARS,W/O. ALEXANDER,
              KANJIRATHINKAL HOUSE, KARIKULAM P.O, RANNI.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
              SRI.S.SREEDEV
              SRI.RONY JOSE
              SHRI.CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL

RESPONDENTS:

     1        STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
              REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT
              SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

     2        DISTRICT COLLECTOR,PATHANAMTHITTA-689 647

     3        SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,LAND ACQUISITION (GENERAL),
              COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

     4        PAZHAVANGHADIKKARA PANCHAYAT,
              PAZHAVANGADY P.O, RANNI-689 672,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

              R1 TO R3 BY SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY,SR GOVT.PLEADER
              R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP              FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME              DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -2-
WP(C).No.559 OF 2021(T)

                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is the owner in possession of 21

cents of land comprised in Survey No.245/5-2.5, 235/1C2 in

Pazhavangady Village, Pathanamthitta Distrirct, which was

originally owned by the petitioner's father Sri.Idicula Thomas

and devolved on the petitioner and her mother by virtue of

Settlement Deed No.672/1992 dated 16.03.1992 of Sub

Registrar Office, Ranni, has filed this writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus

commanding respondents 2 and 3 to finalise the proceedings

initiated pursuant to Ext.P2 as expeditiously as possible and

after hearing the petitioner in a time bound manner.

2. On 08.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for

admission, the learned Government Pleader sought time to

get instructions.

3. On 18.02.2021, during the course of arguments,

the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Ext.P4

communication dated 02.08.2019. The learned Government

Pleader submitted that in the copy of the writ petition served

WP(C).No.559 OF 2021(T)

in the office of the learned Advocate General that document is

not available. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that page Nos.29 and 30 of the writ petition will be furnished

to the learned Government Pleader on that day itself.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents

1 to 3 and also the learned Standing Counsel for the 4 th

respondent.

5. The document marked as Ext.P1 is a copy the

judgment of this Court dated 08.06.2018 in W.P.(C)No.17231

of 2012 filed by the petitioner. Paragraphs 18 and 19 of the

said judgment read thus;

"18. Since there are no established circumstances before this Court to adjudicate the issue, I do not think that it is proper on the part of this Court to rule upon the title, as is sought for by the petitioner, especially due to the fact that, the 3 rd respondent has very specifically mentioned about the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In that view of the matter, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by invoking the extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction conferred on this Court under

WP(C).No.559 OF 2021(T)

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the reliefs claimed in the writ petition are declined. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the revenue authorities by producing necessary documents to establish the title as is claimed in the writ petition.

19. If any representation along with documents is submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, it shall be enquired into by the 2 nd respondent, verifying all records in respect of the acquisition, revenue, office of Sub Registrar etc. etc. and attain finality at the earliest possible time, and at any rate, within six months thereafter, after providing an opportunity of effective participation to the petitioner."

It is pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P1 judgment

that the 3rd respondent Special Tahsildar has issued Ext.P2

notice dated 07.01.2019.

6. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions,

would submit that pursuant to the direction contained in

Ext.P1 judgment, the 2nd respondent District Collector has

conducted a personal hearing on 12.06.2019. The 2 nd

respondent shall conduct a fresh hearing with notice to the

WP(C).No.559 OF 2021(T)

petitioner and thereafter, take an appropriate decision, in

terms of the direction contained in Ext.P1 judgment, within a

time limit to be fixed by this Court.

7. Having considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of

by directing the 2nd respondent District Collector to conduct a

fresh hearing in the matter, in terms of the direction contained

in Ext.P1 judgment, with notice to the petitioner and after

affording the petitioner or her authorised representative a

reasonable 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.

8. 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

WP(C).No.559 OF 2021(T)

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.

9. Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in

this judgment, the 2nd respondent District Collector 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.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE AV/24/2

WP(C).No.559 OF 2021(T)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2018 IN W.P. C NO. 17231/2012 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NUMBERED AS B-1998/18 AND DATED 07.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.01.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND ALONG WITH LEGIBLE COPY.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NUMBERED AS C2-146615/2017 AND DATED 02.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.