Anjana Balaji vs The Tahsildar
2021 Latest Caselaw 7021 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

  MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                    W.P(C).No.25068 OF 2020(G)


PETITIONERS:

      1        ANJANA BALAJI
               AGED 25 YEARS
               D/O. BALAJI, LAKSHMI NIVAS,
               MUNNAR P. O, MUNNAR.

      2        ARCHANA BALAJI
               AGED 23 YEARS
               D/O. BALAJI, LAKSHMI NIVAS,
               MUNNAR P. O, MUNNAR.

               BY ADVS.
               SMT. A. A. SHIBI
               SRI. P. V. VIJU

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE TAHSILDAR,
               TALUK OFFICE, DEVIKULAM,
               PIN - 685 613.

      2        SECRETARY
               MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
               MUNNAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
               PIN - 685 612.

      3        VILLAGE OFFICER,
               KDH VILLAGE,
               DEVIKULAM, PIN - 685 613.

               SMT. VIDYA A.C, G.P

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C).No.25068 OF 2020

                                       2

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioners, who are stated to be in possession and

ownership of 8 Ares and 10 Square Meters of land comprised in

Survey No.20/1 of KDH Village, Devikulam Taluk covered by Ext.P1

Settlement Deed bearing No.2266/2018 of Sub Registrar Office,

Devikulam dated 19.11.2018 and Ext.P2 Patta bearing No.LA-

14/97/B4, issued by the 1 st respondent Tahsildar, Devikulam dated

19.03.1997, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1 st

respondent Tahsildar to find out the original patta file and consider

Ext.P4 application for No Objection Certificate, within a time limit

stipulated by this Court.

2. On 17.11.2020, when this writ petition came up for

consideration the learned Government Pleader sought time to get

instructions.

3. On 11.02.2021, when this writ petition came up for

admission the learned Government Pleader pointed out that in the

copy of the writ petition served in the office of the learned Advocate

General, the document marked as Ext.P4 is a representation

addressed to the Village Officer, KDH Village, Devikulam and not to the

Tahsildar, Devikulam.

W.P(C).No.25068 OF 2020

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned

Standing Counsel for the Munnar Grama Panchayat representing the

2nd respondent and the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1

and 3.

5. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would

submit that Ext.P4 application made by the petitioners is now pending

consideration before the 1st respondent Tahsildar and the said

respondent will consider the same and take an appropriate decision

within a time limit that may be fixed by this Court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

consideration of Ext.P4 application may be with notice to the

petitioners and after affording them a reasonable opportunity of being

heard.

7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the

1st respondent Tahsildar to consider and pass appropriate orders on

Ext.P4 application, if it is in order and pending consideration, with

notice to the petitioners and after affording them an opportunity of

being heard, 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] W.P(C).No.25068 OF 2020

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.

9. Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this

judgment, the 1st 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, JUDGE

SPR W.P(C).No.25068 OF 2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO.2266/2018 OF S.R.O, DEVIKULAM.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PATTA NO. LA-14/97/B4 ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM WITH TYPED COPY.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 1.6.2020 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICE, DEVIKULAM.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR NOC DATED 2.6.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, DEVIKULAM WITHOUT ITS EXHIBITS.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:      NIL.