Suresh Kumar vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 8487 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                  WP(C).No.6571 OF 2021(V)


PETITIONER :

             SURESH KUMAR
             AGED 64 YEARS
             S/O.VISHWANATHAN, PUTHENVEEDU KAPPIL, EDAVA
             P.O., EDAVA VILLAGE, VARKALA TALUK, PIN 695
             311

             BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH

RESPONDENTS:

     1       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
             COLLECTORATE, KODAPPANAKUNNU PO,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN 695 043

     2       THE TAHSILDAR
             (LAND RECORDS), VARKALA TALUK,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 695 141

     3       THE VILLAGE OFFICER
             EDAVA VILLAGE, EDAVA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
             DISTRICT, PIN 695 141

     4       MOHANA CHANDRAN M.
             MANI MANDIRAM, NEAR LMS ATTINGAL P.O.,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 695 101


             R1 TO 3 BY SMT. REKHA. C. NAIR, GOVT. PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP             FOR
ADMISSION ON 15.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME             DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                  -2-
WP(C).No.6571 OF 2021(V)




                             JUDGMENT

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

having an extent of 0.65 Ares and 18.08 Ares, both comprised

in Re-Sy.No.9/23 in Block No.1 of Edava Village in Thandaper

No.2714 by virtue of Partition Deed No.1736/2018, 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 consider and pass orders on Ext.P3

revision petition dated 23.12.2020, within a time limit to be

fixed by this Court. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of

mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 not to accept

tax from the 4th respondent and not to issue any orders with

respect to the dispute pertaining to his property, without

hearing him.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

also the learned Government Pleader appearing for

respondents 1 to 3.

3. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P2 order dated

04.11.2019 of the 2nd respondent Tahsildar (LR), the petitioner

has already filed Ext.P3 revision petition before the 1 st

WP(C).No.6571 OF 2021(V)

respondent under Rule 18(iv) of the Transfer of Registry

Rules, 1966, 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, if the

same is in order and still pending consideration and take an

appropriate decision, with notice to the petitioner and the 4 th

respondent and after affording them an opportunity of being

heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a

WP(C).No.6571 OF 2021(V)

period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified

copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition.

7. The petitioner shall forward a copy of this writ

petition and also a copy of this judgment to the 4 th respondent

by registered post with acknowledgment due and the postal

receipt shall be produced before the 1st respondent.

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

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

WP(C).No.6571 OF 2021(V)

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/16/3

WP(C).No.6571 OF 2021(V)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT PAID THE PETITIONER FOR THE SAID PROPERTY DATED 6.5.2020

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4.11.2020

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION NO.E306431/2021/B18 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.12.2020

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16.1.2021