Disposed

Manoj Gopinathan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jan 2021WP(C)/1014/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a mistake in revenue records where the land extent was shown as 2.51 acres instead of the correct 2.93 acres. The High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the District Collector to consider the pending application for correction under Section 13A of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961, ensuring notice and hearing to all affected parties

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd Respondent to consider and pass orders on the Ext.P4 application with notice to the petitioner and affected persons after a hearing within two months.

Manoj Gopinathan Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.1014 OF 2021(B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MANOJ GOPINATHAN AGED 45 YEARS SREESHAILAM, AIRAPURAM, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SUJITH K A, SUJI NIVAS, NAYATHODE P O, ANGAMALY.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.K.P.SANTHI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKAND, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶13

4 THE TALUK SURVEYOR TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNAD, ERNAKULAM-683544.

¶14

5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PERIYAR IRRIGATION VALLEY PROJECT, BHOOTHATHANKETTU686681.

¶15

6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VENGOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD, ERNAKULAM-683546.

¶16

BY SMT A.C.VIDHYA-GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.1014 OF 2021(B)

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner, who purchased the property having an extent of 68.30 ares and 50.30 ares in Re.Sy No.225/1 of Block No.13 in Vengoor Village of Kunnathunad Taluk, covered by Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds bearing Nos.246/2018 and 287/2018 of Sub Registrar Office, Kuruppumpady, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 application dated 07.12.2020 made for correcting the mistake in the revenue records, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. In the writ petition it is stated that due to the mistake committed by the Survey and Revenue Officers the total extent of land is shown as 2.51 acres instead of 2.93 acres. According to the 6^th respondent Village Office 17 ares included in Re.Sy.No.225/2 of Vengoor Village belongs to Periyar Irrigation Valley Project.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶23

The learned Government Pleader would submit that, if Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner invoking Section 13A of

¶24

WP(C).No.1014 OF 2021(B)

¶25

¶26

the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 is in order and the same is pending consideration, the 2^nd respondent will take an appropriate decision on that application, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that consideration of Ext.P4 application may be with notice to the petitioner.

¶28

Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2^nd respondent District Collector to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner, if that application is in order and the same is pending consideration, with notice to the petitioner and other affected persons, if any, 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 receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶29

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

¶30

WP(C).No.1014 OF 2021(B)

¶31

¶32

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.

¶33

Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this judgment, the 2^nd respondent District Collector shall take an appropriate decision on Ext.P4 application, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the relevant statutory provisions and also the law on the point.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

JUDGE

WP(C).No.1014 OF 2021(B)

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NOS. 246/2018 OF SRO, KURUPPUMPADY. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NOS. 287/2018 OF SRO, KURUPPUMPADY. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 25/04/2019 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGOOR. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7/12/2020 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶43

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7/12/2020 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶44

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7/12/2020 SUBMITTED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Manoj Gopinathan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Gopinathan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunjumon Abraham Vs the State of Kerala

M.C.Pappy Vs District Collector

Binu C. Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Jacob Mathew, Vs Special Tahsildar

Agnas George Vs the District Collector, Kollam

Chitra College of Nursing Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences