Sheeba Suresh vs District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 7424 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 12TH PHALGUNA,
                             1942

                    WP(C).No.1489 OF 2021(I)


PETITIONER:

               SHEEBA SURESH,AGED 59 YEARS, ASHIRVAD HOUSE,
               PALLURUTHINADA, PALLURUTHI P.O. KOCHI 682 006.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ
               SMT.E.S.SONI
               SMT.KUMARI SANGEETHA S.NAIR

RESPONDENTS:

       1       DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM 682 030.

       2       SUB COLLECTOR, FORT KOCHI 682 001.

*      3       THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOCHI 682 001.
               *CORRECTED.
               THE DESCRIPTION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IS SUO
               MOTU CORRECTED AS
               TAHSILDAR(LR), TALUK OFFICE, KOCHI-682 001.
               AS PER ORDER DATED 11-02-2021 IN WP(C).

       4       THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
               RAMESWARAM VILLAGE 682 006.

               R1-4 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP              FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME              DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  -2-
WP(C).No.1489 OF 2021(I)

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner of property

having an extent of 13 cents in Survey No.660/3 of

Rameswaram Village, covered by Will bearing No.307/2004 of

Sub Registrar Office, Kochi, has filed this writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of

mandamus commanding the 1st respondent District Collector

to dispose of Ext.P7 appeal [sic : Ext.P7 revision] filed by the

petitioner against Ext.P8 order dated 26.11.2019 of the 2 nd

respondent Sub Collector, taking note of the law laid down in

Ext.P11 decision of this Court in Ittiyachan v. Tomy [2001

(3) KLT 117] and also Ext.P12 decision of Madras High Court

in Achammal v. Rajamanickam Karthikeyan (died)

rep.by his L.Rs. and others [2010 AIR Madras 34] and

mutate the aforesaid property in the name of the petitioner

forthwith.

2. On 20.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for

admission, the learned Government Pleader sought time to

get instructions and file statement.

WP(C).No.1489 OF 2021(I)

3. On 11.02.2021, the learned Government Pleader

submitted that the Tahsildar (LR), Taluk Office, Kochi is the

concerned officer and therefore, this Court suo motu corrected

the description of the 3rd respondent as aforesaid.

4. A statement has been filed by the learned Senior

Government Pleader, on behalf of the 3 rd respondent Thasildar

(LR).

5. During the course of arguments, the learned

counsel for the petitioner would point out that the relief

sought for in this writ petition is consideration of Ext.P7

revision petition, which is one filed under sub-rule (4) of Rule

18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 against Ext.P8 order

dated 26.11.2019, taking note of the legal and factual

contentions raised by the petitioner.

6. The learned Government Pleader would submit that

the 1st respondent will consider and pass appropriate orders

on Ext.P7 revision petition filed by the petitioner within a time

limit to be fixed by this Court.

7. Having considered the submissions made by the

WP(C).No.1489 OF 2021(I)

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

by directing the 1st respondent District Collector to consider

and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 revision petition filed

by the petitioner and take an appropriate decision, with notice

to the petitioner and after affording her an opportunity of

being heard, 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. The legal contentions raised by the

petitioner, relying of Exts.P11 and P12 decisions, are left open

to be raised before the 1st respondent at appropriate stage.

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.1489 OF 2021(I)

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 District Collector 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/4/3

WP(C).No.1489 OF 2021(I)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE WILL DATED 31.12.2004.

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 27.08.2014.

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08.02.2019.

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30.03.2019.

EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT 02.06.2019.

EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17.08.2019.

EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.01.2020.

EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.11.2019.

EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR UNDER RTI ACT. DATED 09.11.2020

EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE REPLY UNDER THE RTI ACT DATED 14.11.2020.

EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE DECISION IN 2001 KLT 117 DATED 08.09.2001.

EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF THE DECISION IN 2010 0 AIR (MAD) 34 DATED 02.09.2009.