Jayaprakashan @ Prakash vs Revenue Divisional Offcer
2021 Latest Caselaw 2066 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.828 OF 2021(C)


PETITIONER:

               JAYAPRAKASHAN @ PRAKASH,
               AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. BASKARAN,
               SREEKRISHNA,
               CHENTHUPOORU, VENKODE P.O,
               VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 028

               BY ADV. SRI.BASANT BALAJI

RESPONDENTS:

      1        REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFCER,
               OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
               CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 043.

      2        TAHSILDAR L R,
               TALUK OFFICE, EAST FORT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.

      3        THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
               VILLAGE OFFICE ATTIPRA,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 583.

      R1-R3    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.828 OF 2021(C)
                                 -2-



                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner, along with his sister Prathibha, are the owners

in possession of 7 cents of property in Survey No.362/7 in Block

No.17 of Attipra Village, which was purchased by their father

Sri.Bhaskaran Vaidyan as per sale deed No.263 dated 22.01.1953

of the Sub Registrar Office, Kazhakkoottam. The property originally

belonged to Madhavan Keshavan as per partition deed

No.4996/1951 of the Sub Registrar Office, Kazhakkoottam. The

petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the

1st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to consider Ext.P8 appeal

filed against Ext.P7 order dated 13.03.2019 of the 2 nd respondent

Tahsildar (LR) and dispose of the same, within a time limit to be

fixed by this Court.

2. On 13.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for

admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get

instructions as to whether any orders have already been passed on

Ext.P8 appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also

the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. W.P.(C) No.828 OF 2021(C)

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

Ext.P8 appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 18 of Transfer of

Registry Rules, challenging Ext.P7 order dated 13.03.2019 of the

2nd respondent Tahsildar (LR), is now pending consideration before

the 1st respondent. The Appellate Authority has already called for a

report from the 2nd respondent Tahsildar (LR).

5. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would

submit that the 1st respondent is yet to receive the report of the

2nd respondent and on receipt of the same, appropriate decision

will be taken on Ext.P8 appeal.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned

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

the 2nd respondent to forward the report, as sought for in Ext.P11,

to the 1st respondent, if not already forwarded, within a period of

one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment. Thereafter, the 1st respondent Revenue Divisional

Officer shall consider Ext.P8 appeal filed by the petitioner, with

notice to the petitioner and other affected parties and take an

appropriate decision, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,

within a further period of two months. W.P.(C) No.828 OF 2021(C)

7. 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.

8. Therefore, the direction contained in this judgment to

the 1st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer is for taking 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 bpr W.P.(C) No.828 OF 2021(C)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.

1253/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 17.09.2015 IN O.S. NO. 1253/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S. NO.

1253/2012.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.06.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.01.2019 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 13.03.2019.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD 15.04.2019.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07.05.2019.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 02.09.2019 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 26.09.2019 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL