Suvitha Pradeep vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 6720 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

   THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.25876 OF 2020(H)


PETITIONER:

               SUVITHA PRADEEP,
               AGED 29 YEARS
               D/O. SUNDHARAN, PACHERY HOUSE,
               EDAKULAM, ARIPPALAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680688.

               BY ADVS.
               SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA
               SMT.K.VINAYA

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
               DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

      2        DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR,
               CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
               THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680003.

      3        THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
               CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
               THRISSUR DISTRICT.-680003

      4        TAHSILDAR (LR),
               TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR, CHEMBUKAVU,
               THRISSUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680020.

      5        THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
               EDAKUNNI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,
               THRISSUR-680001.


               BY ADV.SMT A.C VIDHYA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.25876 OF 2020(H)

                                  2


                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is the owner of 0.0046 Are and 1.56 Are

(total 2.02 Are) of land comprised in Re.Sy.Nos.56/14-3 and

56/23-5 (old Sy.No.240/2 and 240/4) of Edakkunni Village in

Thrissur District, covered by Ext.P1 document No.1481/1/2019

dated 20.07.2019 of the Sub Registrar Office, Cherppu, has filed

this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

seeking a writ of mandamus directing the 4 th respondent Tahsildar

(LR) to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 representation filed

under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 in the light of

the judgment of this Court in Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v.

Mariumma [2015 (3) KHC 19]. The petitioner has also sought for a

writ of mandamus commanding the 5th respondent Village Officer to

make additional entries in the basic tax register and Thankaper

Account to change the classification of the aforesaid property as

dry land.

2. On 24.11.2020, 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 WP(C).No.25876 OF 2020(H)

learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the

4th respondent Tahsildar (LR) will consider and pass appropriate

orders on Ex.P6 representation filed 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 representation may be with notice to the

petitioner.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned

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

4th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6

representation, if it is in order and pending consideration, with

notice to the petitioner and after affording her an opportunity of

being heard, within a period of one month from the date of receipt

of a certified copy of this judgment.

7. The legal contentions raised by the petitioner are left

open to be raised before the 4th respondent at appropriate stage.

8. In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC

309] the Apex Court held that no mandamus can be issued to WP(C).No.25876 OF 2020(H)

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.

9. 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
JV                                            JUDGE
 WP(C).No.25876 OF 2020(H)






                                APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1                  A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF

DOCUMENT NO.1481/1/2019 DATED 20.7.2019.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAKKUNNI DATED 12.5.2020.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAKUNNI DATED 2.9.2019.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS RDO THRISSUR DATED 12.4.1996.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK PUBLISHED BY THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 2.11.2020.