Madhavi vs The Special Tahsildar (Lr)
2021 Latest Caselaw 543 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

    THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.427 OF 2021(C)


PETITIONER:

               MADHAVI
               AGED 76 YEARS
               NEDUVAKKADU, KINASSERY P.O., KANNADI,
               PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

               BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY



RESPONDENT:

               THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LR),
               OTTAPALAM, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LR)
               OTTAPALAM, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679104.

               BY SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY-SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.427 OF 2021(C)

                                   2


                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is a senior citizen, has filed this writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a

writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to conduct

expeditious enquiry and dispose proceedings numbered as

S.M.No.01/2021 on the files of the respondent within a time limit

that may be fixed by this Court.

2. In this writ petition, it is alleged alleged that inspite of

documents in proof of the petitioner's case being submitted before

the respondent including evidence from the Peruvembu Village,

there is no effective enquiry progress in the matter of deciding

S.M.No.01/2021 and the petitioner is deprived of an early hearing

in the matter. Though requests for early hearing of SM proceedings

were made considering the fact the evidence in the case is already

submitted, the same has been of no avail.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on 06.01.2021,

invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking an early disposal

of SM proceedings. The petitioner, who is stated to be in ownership

and possession of 0.0940 hectors of land in Block No.49,

Re.sy.No.2/4 of Peruvembu Village in Palakkad Taluk, made WP(C).No.427 OF 2021(C)

application before the respondent for purchase certificate, as

evidenced by Ext.P1 receipt dated 01.01.2021.

4. As can be seen from the averments in the writ petition,

S.M.No.01/2021 is initiated only on 01.01.2021.

5. 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 functions within the limit of WP(C).No.427 OF 2021(C)

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."

6. 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.01/2021.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition,

without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach this WP(C).No.427 OF 2021(C)

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

respondent in taking a final decision in S.M.No.01/2021.

Recording the aforesaid 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
JV                                             JUDGE
 WP(C).No.427 OF 2021(C)




                            APPENDIX


PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:



EXT.P1:     TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 01.01.2021 SHOWING THE

SUO MOTU NO.01/2021 ISSUED FROM THE RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:    NIL