Disposed

Agnas George v. the District Collector, Kollam

Kerala HC14 Jan 2021WP(C)/1036/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar to survey and demarcate her property within a fixed time. The Court directed the Tahsildar to consider the application in accordance with law, if pending, and pass appropriate orders within two months after affording an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the Ext.P4 application within two months, if pending and in order, after hearing interested parties.

Agnas George Vs the District Collector, Kollam — 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.1036 OF 2021(D)

PETITIONER:

AGNAS GEORGE

AGED 22 YEARS

D/O. GEORGE, ANCY DALE, THEKKUMBHAGAM CHERY, ERAVIPURAM P.O., MUNDAKKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691011.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM, PIN-691001.

¶13

2 THE TAHSILDAR (LR), THALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT , PIN-691001.

¶14

3 VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKADAVOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT , PIN-691601.

¶15

BY SMT A.C.VIDHYA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

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

¶17

WP(C).No.1036 OF 2021(D)

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner of 0.81 ares of property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed and Ext.P2 release deed, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar (LR) to consider Ext.P4 application dated 28.12.2020 and take steps to conduct survey, demarcate and fix boundaries of the petitioner's property in Re.Sy. No.496/19 in Block No.2 of Thrikkadavoor Village, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶21

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

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner's father is no more and she is living with her mother and sister. Her mother is a nurse in a private hospital. Since the marriage of the petitioner's sister is almost fixed, an early disposal of Ext.P4 application is highly essential.

¶23

The learned Government Pleader would submit that in case Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner is in order and the same is pending consideration, the 2^nd respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, with notice to the

¶24

WP(C).No.1036 OF 2021(D)

¶25

¶26

petitioner and other affected parties and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶27

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 application, in case that application is in order and the same is pending consideration, with notice to the petitioner and other affected persons, and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that application.

¶28

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

¶29

WP(C).No.1036 OF 2021(D)

¶30

¶31

to what has been injected by law.

¶32

Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this judgment, the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar (LR) shall take an appropriate decision in the matter, strictly in accordance with law,

¶33

taking note of the relevant statutory provisions and also the law on the point.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

JUDGE

WP(C).No.1036 OF 2021(D)

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1921/1999/I OF THE SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, ANCHALUMOODU.

¶43

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO.153/I/2017 OF THE SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, ANCHALUMOODU.

¶44

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 8.4.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28.12.2020 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶45

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 4.1.2021 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 5.1.2021 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Agnas George v. the District Collector, Kollam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Agnas George v. the District Collector, Kollam

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

Manoj Gopinathan Vs State of Kerala

Chitra College of Nursing Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences