Kerala High Court
Sushama Siva @ Sushama Siva ... vs The District Collector on 12 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 22TH POUSHA, 1942
W.P.(C) No.511 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
SUSHAMA SIVA @ SUSHAMA SIVA PRAKASHAM @
SUSHAMA KUMARI
W/O. SIVA VELU, RESIDING AT NADUVILEDATHU
VALIYAVEETTIL, KIZHAKKUMBHAGAM KARA, ETTUMANOOR
VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SMT. SAROJINI MENON @
SAROJINIAMMA, AGED 71, HOUSE NO.271 A, VATTAPARMBIL
HOUSE, WARD NO.VII OF ETTUMANNOR PANCHAYATH,
ETTUMANNOR P. O. - 686631, ETTUMANOOR KARA,
ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN
SMT.R.RANJANIE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KUMILY RD, KOTTAYAM - 686002.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KOTTAYAM - 686001.
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
FIRST FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION, UNION CLUB ROAD,
PUTHENANGADY, KOTTAYAM - 686001.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
ATHIRAMPUZHA, ETTUMANOOR ROAD, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM
- 686562.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY -SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.511 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner in possession of
property having an extent of 60.70 ares in Athirampuzha Village
comprised in Block No.28 of Re-Survey No.157/10, covered by Ext.P1
partition deed bearing No.3603/1 of Ettumannur Sub Registrar Office,
has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st respondent to
dispose Ext.P2 appeal filed against the notification of land value under
Section 28 A of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 within a time frame to be
fixed by this Court, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner through her Power of Attorney Holder or any other
authorised representative, after taking into consideration the grounds
urged in the Ext.P7 written submission dated 16.11.2020 also and
obtaining necessary reports from the concerned respondents.
2. On 08.01.2021, 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 Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4.
4. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal before the 1 st respondent
District Collector, which is one dated 03.01.2020, filed against the
notification of land value issued under Section 28 A of the Kerala
W.P.(C) No.511 OF 2021
Stamp Act. The petitioner has also submitted Ext.P7 written
submission dated 16.11.2020 before the 1st respondent.
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that
Ext.P2 appeal filed by the petitioner is pending consideration before
the 1st respondent and the said respondent will pass appropriate
orders on that application, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
consideration of Ext.P2 appeal along with Ext.P7 written submission
may be with notice to the petitioner and after affording her or her
authorised representative an opportunity of being heard.
7. Having considered the submissions made by learned
counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the
1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2
appeal filed by the petitioner, with notice to the petitioner and after
affording the petitioner or her authorised representative an
opportunity of being heard, taking note of the contentions raised by
the petitioner in Ext.P7 written submission and also that raised at the
time of personal hearing, 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]
W.P.(C) No.511 OF 2021
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.
9. Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this
judgment, the 1st respondent shall take an appropriate decision on 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.511 OF 2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE PHOTOCOPY OF PARTITION DEED, DATED
27.12.1991, BEARING NO.3603/1 OF ETTUMANNUR
SUB REGISTRY.
EXHIBIT P2 THE PHOTOCOPY OF APPEAL DATED 3.1.2020
FILED AGAINST THE NOTIFICATION OF LAND
VALUE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P3 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED
14.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT
TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT, CALLING FOR THE
DETAILS AND FURTHER INPUTS, FOR THE PURPOSE
OF DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL.
EXHIBIT P4 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
12.20.2020 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT
TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT, CALLING UPON TO
FURNISH DETAILS REQUIRED IN EXT. P3.
EXHIBIT P5 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPUTER PRINTOUT OF
THE FAIR VALUE, PUBLISHED FOR THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY AS DOWNLOADED FROM THE GOVERNMENT
WEBSITE.
EXHIBIT P6 THE PHOTOCOPY OF A ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE
LIE OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES WITH REFERENCE TO
THE MC ROAD AND INTERNAL ROADS LEADING TO
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P7 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
16.11.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY
EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER, IN FAVOUR OF
SAROJINI MENON, WHO IS THE SIGNATORY IN
THIS WRIT PETITION, AS AUTHORIZED AND
EMPOWERED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY.
