M.C.Pappy vs District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 1280 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

  WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.21805 OF 2020(A)


PETITIONER/S:

                M.C.PAPPY, AGED 86 YEARS
                S/O.CHOWRY, MADATHIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHUVYPU,
                PIN-682508, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.T.N.SURESH
                SMT.DHANUJA VETTATHU

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         DISTRICT COLLECTOR
                CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU,
                ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682030.

      2         ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR,
                RESURVEY SECTION, TALUK OFFICE, KOCHI,
                GROUND FLOOR, KB JACOB RD, FORT KOCHI,
                KOCHI, KERALA-682001.


OTHER PRESENT:

                SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.21805 OF 2020(A)

                                      -2-

                               JUDGMENT

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

and enjoyment of 11.93 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.1541/4

of Elankunnapuzha Village covered by Ext.P1 patta L.A.No.399 of

1968 issued by the Tahsildar, Fort Kochi, has filed this writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a

writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to consider

Ext.P4 complaint in a time bound manner to set at right the

anomalies in the resurvey, which has resulted in shortage of an

extent of 3.08 Ares of land; and a writ of mandamus

commanding the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation

and take immediate action to redress the grievance of the

petitioner in Ext.P4, in a time bound manner.

2. On 15.10.2020 when this writ petition came up for

admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get

instructions.

3. During the pendency of this writ petition, the

petitioner has filed Ext.P8 revision petition dated 04.01.2021

before the 1st respondent District Collector, invoking Section

13A(1) of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961, for WP(C).No.21805 OF 2020(A)

rectifying the anomalies in resurvey records in relation to his

property.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also

the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit

that the 1st respondent will consider and pass appropriate orders

on Ex.P8 revision petition filed by the petitioner, if that petition is

in order and the same is pending consideration, within a time

limit to be fixed by this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that consideration of Ext.P8 revision petition may be with notice

to the petitioner and after affording him a reasonable opportunity

of being heard.

7. Having considered the submissions made by the

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

directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate

orders on Ext.P8 revision petition, if that petition is in order and

the same is pending consideration, with notice to the petitioner

and other affected parties and after affording them an WP(C).No.21805 OF 2020(A)

opportunity of being heard, within a period of three 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 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 bkn/-

WP(C).No.21805 OF 2020(A)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LA NO.399/1968 ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR FORT KOCHI.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.12.1989 ISSUED BY ELANKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 12.4.1994 ISSUED BY ELANKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE OFFICE.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.5.2020 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.8.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH REGISTERED POST TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT OF THE EXHIBIT P5.

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT DATED 6.9.2020 TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT.

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED U/S 13A(1) OF THE SURVEY AND BOUNDARIES ACT, 1964 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.