Allowed

Kunjumon Abraham v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jan 2021WP(C)/128/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandate to direct the Tahsildar to measure his land boundary and dispose of his Form 10 application. The court directed the Tahsildar to consider the application within one month with notice and a hearing opportunity, strictly in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

The 4th respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 application with notice and hearing opportunity within one month.

Kunjumon Abraham Vs the State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.128 OF 2021(M)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

KUNJUMON ABRAHAM, AGED 62 YEARS S/O.ABRAHAM, GREEN COTTAGE, CHEPPIL, AYOOR P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691533.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR SMT.K.MALINI

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION ROAD, KAANKATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM-691013.

¶12

3 THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, MINI CIVIL STATION, KOTTARAKKARA-691506.

¶13

4 THE ADDL.TAHSILDHAR, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, MINI CIVIL STATION, KOTTARAKKARA-691506.*

¶14

*THE DESCRIPTION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS 'TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), KOTTARAKKARA TALUK' AS PER ORDER DATED 13.01.2021 IN W.P. (c).NO.128/2021.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SMT A.C.VIDHYA- GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.128 OF 2021(M)

¶19

-2-

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner, who is the owner in possession and enjoyment of 4.45 Ares of land in Re.Sy.No.439/5 of Valakom Village, Kottarakkara Taluk, Kollam District, covered by Ext.P1 sale deed bearing No.1385/2004 has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3^rd respondent to measure and fix the boundary of his property covered under Ext.P1 forthwith; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 3^rd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 application, as early as possible, after affording an opportunity of being heard.

¶22

On 05.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for

¶23

admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

¶24

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

¶25

The learned Government Pleader would submit that if Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner is in order and it is still

¶26

WP(C).No.128 OF 2021(M)

¶27

-3-

¶28

pending consideration, the 4^th respondent will consider the same

¶29

and pass appropriate orders thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that consideration of Ext.P4 may be with notice to the petitioner and after affording him reasonable opportunity of being heard.

¶31

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 4^th respondent Tahsildar (Land Records), Kottarakkara Taluk, to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 application made by the petitioner, with notice to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any, and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶32

In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC

¶33

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

¶34

WP(C).No.128 OF 2021(M)

¶35

-4-

¶36

Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259] the Apex Court

¶37

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

¶38

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.

¶39

Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this judgment, the 4^th respondent 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.

¶40

No order as to costs.

¶41

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶42

bkn/-

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1385/2004 OF KOTTARAKKARA SRO.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NO.49875819 DATED 03.09.2020 OF VALAKAM VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.KL02041705682/2020 DATED 27.08.2020 SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE YEAR 2020-21.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER FORM 10 AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE KERALA SURVEY AND BOUNDARIES ACT, 1961 DATED 02.12.2019 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Kunjumon Abraham v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunjumon Abraham v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed Rafi C.K Vs Administrator

Sushama Siva @ Sushama Siva Prakasham @ Sushama Kumari Vs the District Collector

Beatrise Mary Vs Director of Surveys and Land Records

Muhammed Nizar C.P., Vs Regional Transport Officer

M.C.Pappy Vs District Collector

Binu C. Varghese Vs State of Kerala