Lodge Minchin No.2710 Ec vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 886 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942

                  WP(C).No.28333 OF 2020(N)


PETITIONER:

              LODGE MINCHIN NO.2710 EC
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K. NEELAKANTAN
              NAIR, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. M.KRISHNAN NAIR,
              RESIDING AT JNWA-4A, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOWDIAR,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.D.KISHORE
              SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)
              SMT.MEERA GOPINATH

RESPONDENTS:

     1        STATE OF KERALA
              REPRESENTD BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
              REVENUE (U) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
              SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

     2        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035.

     3        THE TAHSILDAR
              TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.

     4        THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR
              TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-685 023.


              SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY-SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP             FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME             DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 -2-
WP(C).No.28333 OF 2020(N)




                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner, which is a Society holding 65 cents of

land comprised in Survey Nos.597 and 598 of

Sasthamangalam Village by way of Kuthakapattom and having

ownership and possession of 70.925 cents of land in Survey

No.598 lying on the southern side of the aforesaid 65 cents,

facing the Vazhuthacaud-Pangodu Road, has filed this writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking

a writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd respondent Tahsildar

to consider and act on Ext.P3 application made under the

provisions of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1964

seeking re-fixation of the boundaries of the said property and

Ext.P4 application dated 26.10.2020 made in Form No.8,

invoking Rule 27 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules,

1964 for survey and demarcation of the boundaries of the said

property, with notice to the petitioner, expeditiously.

2. On 18.12.2020, when this writ petition came up for

admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to

get instructions.

WP(C).No.28333 OF 2020(N)

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader would

submit that in case Exts.P3 and P4 applications made by the

petitioner are in order and still pending consideration, the 3 rd

respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate

orders thereon, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that consideration of Exts.P3 and P4 may be with notice to the

petitioner and after affording an authorised representative of

the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of

by directing the 3rd respondent Tahsildar to consider and pass

appropriate orders on Exts.P3 and P4 applications made by

the petitioner, with notice to the petitioner and after affording

the authorised representative of the petitioner an opportunity

of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,

within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a

WP(C).No.28333 OF 2020(N)

certified copy of this judgment.

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 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 Tahsildar 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

AV/12/1

WP(C).No.28333 OF 2020(N)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PERTAINING TO THE LEASED OUT PROPERTY HAVING AN EXTENT OF 65 CENTS IN SURVEY NO.598 AS WELL AS THE REGISTERED HOLDING OF THE PETITIONER IN SURVEY 598 HAVING AN EXTENT OF 70.925 CENTS.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COY OF THE RESURVEY SKETCH PREPARED ON 27.10.2014 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3(A)          TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL
                       ACKNOWLEDGEMENT EVIDENCING THE
                       ACCEPTANCE OF EXHIBIT P3 BY THE 3RD
                       RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4             TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED

26.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.