Ouseph vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 2939 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 7TH MAGHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.1968 OF 2021(U)


PETITIONERS:

      1        OUSEPH
               AGED 68 YEARS
               S/O. KOCHUVARKEY, MALPAN HOUSE, NAYATHODE P.O,
               ANGAMALY 683572

      2        SALEENA,
               AGED 72 YEARS
               W/O. JOHNY, KOZHIKKADAN HOUSE, MINI NAGAR,
               ANGAMALY 683572

               BY ADV. SMT.MEREENA.J.JOSEPH

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
               GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 6956 001

      2        THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
               COMMISSIONERATE OF LAND REVENUE,
               PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 33

      3        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
               CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682 030

      4        THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
               FORT KOCHI 682 001


               SMT A.C.VIDHYA- GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  2

WP(C).No.1968 OF 2021(U)



                             JUDGMENT

The 1st petitioner is the owner in possession of property in

Block No.XII, Angamaly Village in Ernakulam District in Survey

No.337/1 (4.60 Ares) and Survey No.338/9 (7.85 Ares) and the 2 nd

petitioner is the owner in possession of property in Block No.XII of

Angamaly Village in Ernakulam District in Survey No.111/9-2

(84Sq.m) and Survey No.111/18-2 (1.86 Ares). The petitioners

have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

the India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3 rd

respondent District Collector to dispose of Exts.P1 and P2 appeals

filed against fixation of land value under Section 28A of the Kerala

Stamp Act, 1959, after hearing the petitioners and publish the

same in the Official Gazette within the time limit to be fixed by this

Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also

the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is non-consideration of

Exts.P1 and P2 appeals filed against the notification of land value

issued under Section 28A of the Kerala Stamp Act, which are now

pending consideration before the 3rd respondent.

WP(C).No.1968 OF 2021(U)

4. The learned Government Pleader would submit that, if

Exts.P1 and P2 appeals filed by the petitioners are in order, and

the same is still pending consideration, the 3 rd respondent shall

consider the same and pass appropriate orders, within a time limit

to be fixed by this Court.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned

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

the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on

Exts.P1 and P2 appeals filed by the petitioners, if they are in order,

and are pending consideration, as expeditiously as possible, at any

rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a

certified copy of this judgment, with notice to the petitioners and

after affording them an opportunity of being heard.

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

WP(C).No.1968 OF 2021(U)

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.

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

judgment, the 3rd respondent District Collector 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.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE hmh

WP(C).No.1968 OF 2021(U)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25-02-2020

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 25-02-2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:        NIL