K.Jayan vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 10304 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

     FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.7687 OF 2021(I)


PETITIONER:

               K.JAYAN
               AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. KESAVAN,
               NEDIYATH VEEDU, MARUTHOOR KULANGARA SOUTH,
               KARUNAGAPALLI, KOLLAM.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
               SHRI.HARISANKAR R
               SMT.PRIYA MARY P.L.

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

      2        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
               OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
               KOLLAM, PIN-680003.

      3        RDO,
               OFFICE OF THE RDO, VIDYA NAGAR,
               KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN-691013.

      4        DISTRICT REGISTRAR,
               GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, KOLLAM, T D NAGAR, VIDYA NAGAR,
               KOLLAM, PIN-691013.

      5        THASILDAR,
               TALUK OFFICE, KARUNAGAPALLI, PIN-690518.


               BY SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.7687 OF 2021(I)

                                     2

                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner who owns 32½ cents of land in

Re.Sy.No.519/8-2 in Block No.10 of Karunagapally Village, covered

by Ext.P1 Sale Deed bearing No.1093 of 1994 of the Sub Registrar

Office, Karunagapally, has filed this writ petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus

commanding the 2nd respondent District Collector to consider and

pass final orders on Ext.P2 application made under Section 28A

(1A) of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, for revision of fair value of the

land fixed under sub section (1) of Section 28A.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the

learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would

submit that the 2nd respondent District Collector has already

conducted a personal hearing on Ext.P2 application made by the

petitioner, on 20.10.2020. The 2nd respondent is awaiting report

from the 3rd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer and also the

District Registrar General. Thereafter the 2 nd respondent shall take

an appropriate decision on Ext.P2 application made by the

petitioner.

WP(C).No.7687 OF 2021(I)

4. The learned counsel for the the petitioner would submit

that, after the receipt of report from the 3 rd respondent Revenue

Divisional officer and the District Registrar General, the petitioner

may be afforded with an opportunity of hearing.

5. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record

and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both

sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The 2nd respondent District Collector shall obtain

necessary report from the 3rd respondent Revenue

Divisional Officer and also the District Registrar

General, if not already received, within a period of

one month.

(ii) Thereafter the 2nd respondent shall take an

appropriate decision on Ext.P2 application made by

the petitioner, after conducting a fresh hearing, with

notice to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible,

at any rate, within a further period of six weeks.

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 WP(C).No.7687 OF 2021(I)

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 2nd respondent 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.

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

                                       ANIL K.NARENDRAN
JV                                            JUDGE
 WP(C).No.7687 OF 2021(I)





                           APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1          TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED
                    20.4.1994.

EXHIBIT P2          TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
                    PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
                    NIL IN SEPTEMBER 2019.