Sethumadhavan vs Special Tahsildar (Lr)
2021 Latest Caselaw 3079 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

    THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 8TH MAGHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.2256 OF 2021(F)


PETITIONER/S:

                SETHUMADHAVAN, AGED 42 YEARS
                S/O.PADMAVATHI AMMA, ANAPPAYAKATTIRI HOUSE,
                KULUKKALLUR, KULUKKALLUR VILLAGE,
                PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD.

                BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

RESPONDENT/S:

                SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LR)
                OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LR),
                MINI CIVIL STATION, OTTAPALAM,
                PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD-679 104.


OTHER PRESENT:

                SRI SUNIL NATH N.B- GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C).No.2256 OF 2021(F)

                                 -2-



                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus

commanding the respondent Land Tribunal, Pattambi to consider

and pass orders in S.M.No.84/2021, within a time limit to be

fixed by this Court. The suo motu proceedings initiated by the

Land Tribunal, Pattambi under Rule 5 of the Kerala Land Reforms

(Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1970, is one for assignment of

the right, title and interest of the landlord vested in the

Government under Section 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act,

1963 and for issuance of certificate of purchase under Section

72K of the said Act, read with Rule 14 of the said Rules, in

respect of 0.1578 Hectares of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.93/5 in

Block No.37 of Kulukkallur Village of Pattambi Taluk in Palakkad

District.

2. As evident from Ext.P1 certificate, based on the report

of the Village Officer, Kulukkallur Village, the Land Tribunal,

Pattambi initiated suo motu proceedings as S.M.No.84/2021 only W.P(C).No.2256 OF 2021(F)

on 20.01.2021.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also

the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative

Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145], a Three-

Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can

be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty

imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the

part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief

function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties

prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and

officers exercising public functions within the limit of their

jurisdiction. Paragraph 15 of the abovesaid decision reads thus:

"15. There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation.

The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public W.P(C).No.2256 OF 2021(F)

functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. (See Lekhraj Satramdas, Lalvani v. Deputy Custodian-cum-managing Officer and Ors. [1966]1 SCR 120: AIR 1966 SC 334. Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College [1962] Supp. 2 SCR 144: (1962) SC 1210 and Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1973 1 SCC 485: AIR 1973 SC 964. In the instant case, it has not been shown by respondent No.1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable, Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that respondent No.1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same."

5. In view of the law laid down in the decision referred to

supra, at this point of time, the petitioner cannot seek a writ of

mandamus for a time bound consideration of S.M.No.84/2021. W.P(C).No.2256 OF 2021(F)

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ

petition, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to

approach this Court again, in case there is delay on the part of

the respondent in taking a final decision in S.M.No.84/2021.

Recording the above submission made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as

withdrawn, without prejudice to the aforesaid right of the

petitioner.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE.

bkn/-

W.P(C).No.2256 OF 2021(F)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 20.01.2021.