G. Somanatha Pillay vs District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 8369 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1942

                   WP(C).No.6439 OF 2021(D)


PETITIONER:

              G. SOMANATHA PILLAY,AGED 78 YEARS
              @ SOMAN GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAY,
              S/O GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI,
              RESIDING AT "KOTTARATHIL", MUNDAPUZHA, RANNI
              P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689672.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
              SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
              SHRI.MANU SANKAR P.

RESPONDENTS:

     1        DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA,
              CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689645.

     2        REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER(RDO),
              THIRUVALLA,PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689101.

     3        TAHASILDAR (LAND RECORDS),
              TALUK OFFICE, RANNY, PIN-689672.

     4        VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUNADU, VILLAGE OFFICE,
              PERUNADU, RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA
              DISTRICT, PIN-689711.


              R BY SMT A.C VIDHYA -GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP             FOR
ADMISSION ON 12.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME             DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                      -2-
WP(C).No.6439 OF 2021(D)

                                  JUDGMENT

The petitioner, along with his wife and son, filed Ext.P3

revision under Rule 18 (iv) of the Transfer of Registry Rules,

1966 before the 1st respondent District Collector, against

Ext.P2 order dated 18.11.2019 issued by the 2 nd respondent

Revenue Divisional Officer in Appeal No.A5-2070/19/K.Dis.

The petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition filed

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

mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to consider and

pass orders on Ext.P3 revision, in accordance with law, after

affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a

time limit to be fixed by this Court. The petitioner has also

sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 4 th

respondent Village Officer to accept land tax from the

petitioner and his family members, in furtherance of Exts.P1,

P1(a), P1(b), P1(c) and P1(d), forthwith, and to issue up-to-

date receipts.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents.

3. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P2 order dated

WP(C).No.6439 OF 2021(D)

18.11.2019 of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner along with his

wife and son has already filed Ext.P3 revision petition before

the 1st respondent, which is now pending consideration.

4. The learned Government Pleader would submit that

the 1st respondent will consider and pass appropriate orders

on Ext.P3 revision petition, within a time limit to be fixed by

this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that consideration of Ext.P3 may be with notice to the

petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being

heard.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the

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

leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by the

petitioner, by directing the 1st respondent District Collector to

consider Ext.P3 revision petition made by the petitioner and

his wife and son, if that revision petition is in order and still

pending consideration and take an appropriate decision, with

notice to the petitioner and others and after affording them an

opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at

any rate, within a period of two months from the date of

WP(C).No.6439 OF 2021(D)

receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

7. 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.

8. 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/12/3

WP(C).No.6439 OF 2021(D)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.01.2017 OF PERUNADU VILLAGE IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.01.2017 OF PERUNADU VILLAGE IN THE NAME OF CHIDAMBARAMMAL.

EXHIBIT P1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 22.01.2015 OF PERUNADU VILLAGE IN THE NAME OF BIJU SOMANATHA PILLAI.

EXHIBIT P1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.01.2017 OF PERUNADU VILLAGE IN THE NAME OF GAYATHRI PRADEEP.

EXHIBIT P1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 12.01.2017 OF PERUNADU VILLAGE IN THE NAME OF GAURAV PRADEEP.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.A5/2070/19/K.DIS DATED 18/11/2019 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 06.01.2020 ALONG WITH RECEIPT.