Kerala High Court
K.J Kuriachan vs The Tahsildar (L.R) on 19 January, 2021
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.1352 OF 2021(T)
PETITIONER/S:
1 K.J KURIACHAN
S/O. LATE K.K.JOSEPH, KADAMKULAM HOUSE,
AYAVANA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2 FR.SCARIA KADAMKULAM
S/O. LATE K.K.JOSEPH, KADAMKULAM HOUSE,
AYAVANA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE TAHSILDAR (L.R)
TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA,
PIN-686 661.
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE, ENANELLOOR,
MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686 830.
3 PAULSON PETER
S/O. PATHROSE, KADAMKULAM HOUSE,
AYAVANA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 837.
4 THE FEDERAL BANK LTD.
ASSET RECOVERY DEPARTMENT,
HEAD OFFICE, ALUVA, PIN-683 101,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER.
5 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661.
R4 BY SRI. MOHAN JACOB GEORGE, SC.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. A.C.VIDHYA- 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.1352 OF 2021(T)
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioners who are stated to be the absolute owners in
possession of 1.24.15 hectares of property and 20.23 ares of
property in Enanallur Village covered by Exts.P1 and P2 settlement
deeds bearing Nos.21/98 and 22/98 of the Sub Registrar Office,
Kalloorkad, have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4
order dated 19.07.2018 of the 1 st respondent Tahsildar (LR),
Muvattupuzha, insofar as it cancels the mutation of the petitioners'
properties from Thandaper No.7906 to Thandaper Nos.11110 and
11149. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that
Ext.P3 judgment of this Court dated 30.08.2016 in W.P.(C)
Nos.21887 of 2015 never directed the 1 st respondent Tahsildar to
cancel the mutation of the petitioners properties situated in
Enanallur Village; to direct the 1 st respondent Tahsildar (LR) and
the 2nd respondent Village Officer to accept the land tax in respect
of the said properties in Enanallur Village; and to direct the 5 th
respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to consider and dispose of
Ext.P5 statutory appeal within a time limit, after hearing the
parties.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
W.P.(C) No.1352 OF 2021(T)
learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2 and 5
and also the learned Standing Counsel for 4th respondent Bank.
Considering the nature of relief proposed to the granted, service of
notice on the 3rd respondent is dispenced with.
3. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for
the petitioners would confine the relief sought for in this writ
petition as one for final disposal of Ext.P5 appeal filed before the
5th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, under Rule 18 of the
Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, against Ext.P4 order dated
19.07.2018 of the 1st respondent Tahsildar (LR).
4. Having considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing
the 5th respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to consider and pass
appropriate orders on Ext.P5 appeal filed by the petitioners, after
affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and also
to respondents 3 and 4, 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.
5. 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
W.P.(C) No.1352 OF 2021(T)
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.
6. Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this
judgment, the 5th 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.1352 OF 2021(T)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED
NO.21/98.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED
NO.22/98.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
30.8.2016 IN WPC NO.21887 OF 2015.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.7.2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DATED
18.2.2020.
