Muraleedharan vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 2053 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

    TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942

                       W.P.(C) No.1340 OF 2021(N)


PETITIONER/S:

                MURALEEDHARAN,
                AGED 71 YEARS
                S/O.GOPALAN NADAR,
                TC NO.25, 3240, K.A.T.ROAD,
                VANCHIYOOR,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035.

                BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE OF KERALA
                REP. BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
                GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

      2         THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER,
                OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER,
                CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.

      3         THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
                (DEPUTY COLLECTOR), COLLECTRATE,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.

      4         THE TAHASILDAR (LR),
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.

      5         THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
                VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, VANCHIYOOR,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035.


OTHER PRESENT:

                SMT VIDHYA A.C- GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.1340 OF 2021(N)

                                   2

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner of 0.917 cents

of property comprised in Survey No.1562/4-1 of Vanchiyoor

Village, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding

the 2nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to dispose of Ext.P5

appeal in the light of Ext.P2 report dated 19.10.2016 of the 5 th

respondent Village Officer, at the earliest, within a time limit, fixed

by this Court. Ext.P5 appeal is one filed under Rule 18 of the

Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 challenging the transfer of registry

effected on 11.07.2013 vide P.V. 330/13. On Ext.P5 appeal the 2nd

respondent has already called for a report from the 4 th respondent

Tahsildar (LR), Thiruvananthapuram, as evident from Ext.P6

communication dated 30.04.2019.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the

2nd respondent will consider and take appropriate decision on

Ext.P5 appeal filed by the petitioner after obtaining a report from

the 4th respondent Tahsildar.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that W.P.(C) No.1340 OF 2021(N)

the consideration of Ext.P5 appeal may be with a 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 Revenue Divisional Officer to consider and pass

appropriate orders on Ext.P5 appeal filed by the petitioner with

notice to the petitioner and other affected parties, 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

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.

W.P.(C) No.1340 OF 2021(N)

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

judgment, the 2nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer 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 JUDGE

MIN W.P.(C) No.1340 OF 2021(N)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION/APPEAL DATED 03.10.2016 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19.10.2016 SUBMITTED BY VILLAGE OFFICER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN 21.06.2018 PASSED IN WP(C)NO.20497/2018 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B9-145064/2018 DATED 11.02.2019 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED NIL, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 30.04.2019 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO 4TH RESPONDENT.