Sabu Joseph vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 6470 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.4608 OF 2021(A)


PETITIONER:

               SABU JOSEPH, AGED 62 YEARS
               S/O. LATE K.I. JOSEPH, PALM HILL VILLA,
               VILLA NO. 4, PEROORKKADA VILLAGE, KALLAYAM P.O,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 028

               BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL

RESPONDENTS:

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

      2        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
               COLLECTORATE, KODAPPANAKUNNU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
               695 043.

      3        THE TAHASILDAR,
               TALUK OFFICE, NEDUMANGAD, NEDUMANGAD P.O,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541

      4        THE TAHASILDAR (LAND RECORDS),
               TALUK OFFICE, NEDUMANGAD, NEDUMANGAD P.O,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541

      5        THE TALUK SURVEYOR,
               TALUK OFFICE, NEDUMANGAD, NEDUMANGAD P.O,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541

      6        THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
               THEKKADA VILLAGE, THEKKADA, VEMBAYAM,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 615



               BY SMT A.C.VIDHYA -GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.4608 OF 2021(A)

                                    2


                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is the owner in possession and enjoyment

of 2.51 Ares of property comprised in Re.Sy.No.31/9 in Block No.30

of Thekkada Village, covered by Sale Deed No.576/2012 dated

16.02.2012 and Sale Deed No.241/2021 dated 27.01.2021 of Sub

Registrar Office, Kanniyakulangara, has filed this writ petition under

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

mandamus commanding respondents 3 to 6 to survey and

demarcate the aforesaid property as per the provisions of the

Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961, the Rules made

thereunder and the Survey Manual taking into consideration of

Exts.P4 and P5 applications dated 15.02.2021 submitted by the

petitioner within a stipulated time as directed by this Court. The

petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the petitioner is

entitled to get survey and demarcation of the aforesaid property as

per the provisions of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961,

the Rules made thereunder and the Survey Manual taking into

consideration of Exts.P4 and P5 applications submitted by the

petitioner.

2. The document placed on record as Ext.P4 is an WP(C).No.4608 OF 2021(A)

application filed under Rule 27 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries

Act, 1961 for demarcation and survey of registered holding, which

is one submitted before the 4 th respondent Tahsildar (LR), which

has already been forwarded to the 6 th respondent Village Officer for

necessary action.

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

6th respondent will consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P4

and P5 application filed by the petitioner, within a time limit to be

fixed by this Court.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned

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

respondents 4 and 6 to consider and pass appropriate orders on

Ext.P4 and P5 applications, within a period of three months from

the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

6. 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 WP(C).No.4608 OF 2021(A)

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.

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

judgment, respondents 4 and 6 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
JV                                            JUDGE
 WP(C).No.4608 OF 2021(A)






                               APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1                 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED

09.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 09.02.2021 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD 2020-21 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO. 54520850 DATED 12.02.2021 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER RULE 27 OF THE SURVEY AND BOUNDARIES RULES.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT UNDER THE SURVEY MANUAL AND THE ORDER FORWARDING THE APPLICATION TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 15.02.2021.