Daisy Chacko vs The Tahsildar
2021 Latest Caselaw 10307 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.3847 OF 2021(E)


PETITIONER :

             DAISY CHACKO
             AGED 64 YEARS
             W/O.CHACKO, POOVELIL HOUSE, NEELOOR P.O.,
             KADANADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.P.BABU KUMAR
             SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR
             SRI.VISHNU BABU

RESPONDENTS:

     1       THE TAHSILDAR
             LAND RECORDS, TALUK OFFICE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
             PALA P.O., KOTTAYAM-686651.

     2       THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
             KADANADU VILLAGE OFFICE, KADANADU P.O.,
             KOTTAYAM-686651.

             R 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:
                                 -2-
WP(C).No.3847 OF 2021(E)

                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner's husband, who is a physically disabled

person, owns 1.62 Hectors of land in Survey No.2016/1/3 of

Kadanadu Village in Kottayam District. The petitioner has filed

this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and

2 to implement Ext.P1 order dated 03.12.2020 issued by the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala within a time frame. The

operative portion of Ext.P1 order reads thus;

"Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Transfer of Registries effected on the basis of defective re-survey records are liable to be cancelled. Therefore, PV No.239/08 and subsequent transfer of registries viz PV No.4/16, PV No.5/16, PV No.69/16 and PV No.70/16 of the 1st defendant are hereby cancelled. The Tahsildar (LR), Meenachil will take necessary steps to effect subsequent changes in the Revenue Records concerned."

2. On 15.02.2021, when this writ petition came up for

admission, the learned Government Pleader sought time to

get instructions.

3. On 04.03.2021, the learned Government Pleader

submitted that the application made by the petitioner for

WP(C).No.3847 OF 2021(E)

mutation is under progress.

4. On 16.03.2021, the 1st respondent has filed a

statement. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said statement read

thus;

"7. Petitioner has approached the Hon'ble High Court for implementation of Exhibit P1 order given by Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala. In the order Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala gave direction to make subsequent changes in the village records and all the changes were made according to the order.

8. The petitioner has approached this office for effecting mutation of document No.2373/88 of Sub Registrar Office, Ramapuram. This application is now under process in this office. Possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's husband to be identified before effecting mutation. Now this application is given to the Taluk Surveyor for the survey of land under deed No.2373/88 of Sub Registrar Office Ramapuram."

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents.

6. As stated in the statement filed by the 1 st

respondent, application submitted by the petitioner for

effecting mutation has already been forwarded to the Taluk

WP(C).No.3847 OF 2021(E)

Surveyor for the survey of land under deed No.2373/88 of the

Sub Registrar Office, Ramapuram.

7. 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 by directing the

1st respondent to finalise the proceedings, initiated for

implementing Ext.P1 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Pala after obtaining report from the Taluk Surveyor, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two

months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment.

8. 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

WP(C).No.3847 OF 2021(E)

of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are

contrary to what has been injected by law.

9. Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in

this judgment, the 1st 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/26/3

WP(C).No.3847 OF 2021(E)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RDO DATED 3.12.2020.