Manoj Gopinathan vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 1507 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

    THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.1014 OF 2021(B)


PETITIONER:

               MANOJ GOPINATHAN
               AGED 45 YEARS
               SREESHAILAM, AIRAPURAM, ERNAKULAM,
               REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
               SUJITH K A, SUJI NIVAS,
               NAYATHODE P O, ANGAMALY.

               BY ADV. SMT.K.P.SANTHI

RESPONDENTS:

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

      2        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
               CIVIL STATION,
               ERNAKULAM-682030.

      3        THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT,
               CIVIL STATION, KAKKAND, ERNAKULAM-682030.

      4        THE TALUK SURVEYOR
               TALUK OFFICE,
               KUNNATHUNAD, ERNAKULAM-683544.

      5        THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
               PERIYAR IRRIGATION VALLEY PROJECT, BHOOTHATHANKETTU-
               686681.

      6        THE VILLAGE OFFICER
               VENGOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD,
               ERNAKULAM-683546.


               BY SMT A.C.VIDHYA-GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.1014 OF 2021(B)

                                   2



                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who purchased the property having an extent

of 68.30 ares and 50.30 ares in Re.Sy No.225/1 of Block No.13 in

Vengoor Village of Kunnathunad Taluk, covered by Exts.P1 and P2

sale deeds bearing Nos.246/2018 and 287/2018 of Sub Registrar

Office, Kuruppumpady, 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 application

dated 07.12.2020 made for correcting the mistake in the revenue

records, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,

within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. In the writ petition it

is stated that due to the mistake committed by the Survey and

Revenue Officers the total extent of land is shown as 2.51 acres

instead of 2.93 acres. According to the 6th respondent Village

Office 17 ares included in Re.Sy.No.225/2 of Vengoor Village

belongs to Periyar Irrigation Valley Project.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the

learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned Government Pleader would submit that, if

Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner invoking Section 13A of WP(C).No.1014 OF 2021(B)

the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 is in order and the

same is pending consideration, the 2nd respondent will take an

appropriate decision on that application, within a time limit to be

fixed by this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

consideration of Ext.P4 application may be with notice to the

petitioner.

5. Having considered the submission made by the learned

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

the 2nd respondent District Collector to consider and pass

appropriate orders on Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner, if

that application is in order and the same is pending consideration,

with notice to the petitioner and other affected persons, if any, and

after affording them an 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.

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 WP(C).No.1014 OF 2021(B)

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.

Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this

judgment, the 2nd respondent District Collector shall take an

appropriate decision on Ext.P4 application, strictly in accordance

with law, taking note of the relevant statutory provisions and also

the law on the point.

Sd/-

                                      ANIL K.NARENDRAN
JV                                           JUDGE
 WP(C).No.1014 OF 2021(B)






                               APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1                 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NOS. 246/2018
                           OF SRO, KURUPPUMPADY.

EXHIBIT P2                 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NOS. 287/2018
                           OF SRO, KURUPPUMPADY.

EXHIBIT P3                 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED

25/04/2019 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGOOR.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7/12/2020 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7/12/2020 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7/12/2020 SUBMITTED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.