Disposed

Sheeba Suresh, v. District Collector

Kerala HC3 Mar 2021WP(C)/1489/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed the District Collector to decide the petitioner's pending revision petition regarding property mutation within two months, ensuring natural justice principles were followed, while leaving specific legal contentions for the Collector to address during proceedings.

What did the court decide?

District Collector directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the revision petition within two months.

Sheeba Suresh, Vs District Collector — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.1489 OF 2021(I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHEEBA SURESH,AGED 59 YEARS, ASHIRVAD HOUSE, PALLURUTHINADA, PALLURUTHI P.O. KOCHI 682 006.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ SMT.E.S.SONI SMT.KUMARI SANGEETHA S.NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM 682 030.

¶11

2 SUB COLLECTOR, FORT KOCHI 682 001.

¶12

*3 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOCHI 682 001. CORRECTED. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IS SUO MOTU CORRECTED AS TAHSILDAR(LR), TALUK OFFICE, KOCHI-682 001. AS PER ORDER DATED 11-02-2021 IN WP(C).

¶13

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE 682 006.

¶14

R1-4 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

-2-

¶17

WP(C).No.1489 OF 2021(I)

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

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

¶20

having an extent of 13 cents in Survey No.660/3 of Rameswaram Village, covered by Will bearing No.307/2004 of Sub Registrar Office, Kochi, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent District Collector to dispose of Ext.P7 appeal [sic : Ext.P7 revision] filed by the petitioner against Ext.P8 order dated 26.11.2019 of the 2^nd respondent Sub Collector, taking note of the law laid down in Ext.P11 decision of this Court in Ittiyachan v. Tomy [2001 (3) KLT 117] and also Ext.P12 decision of Madras High Court in Achammal v. Rajamanickam Karthikeyan (died) rep.by his L.Rs. and others [2010 AIR Madras 34] and mutate the aforesaid property in the name of the petitioner forthwith.

¶21

On 20.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader sought time to get instructions and file statement.

¶22

-3-

¶23

WP(C).No.1489 OF 2021(I)

¶24

On 11.02.2021, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the Tahsildar (LR), Taluk Office, Kochi is the concerned officer and therefore, this Court suo motu corrected the description of the 3^rd respondent as aforesaid.

¶25

A statement has been filed by the learned Senior Government Pleader, on behalf of the 3^rd respondent Thasildar (LR).

¶26

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the relief sought for in this writ petition is consideration of Ext.P7 revision petition, which is one filed under sub-rule (4) of Rule 18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 against Ext.P8 order dated 26.11.2019, taking note of the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner.

¶27

The learned Government Pleader would submit that the 1^st respondent will consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 revision petition filed by the petitioner within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶28

Having considered the submissions made by the

¶29

-4-

¶30

WP(C).No.1489 OF 2021(I)

¶31

learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1^st respondent District Collector to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 revision petition filed by the petitioner and take an appropriate decision, with notice to the petitioner and after affording her 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. The legal contentions raised by the petitioner, relying of Exts.P11 and P12 decisions, are left open to be raised before the 1^st respondent at appropriate stage.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

-5-

¶35

WP(C).No.1489 OF 2021(I)

¶36

of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law.

¶37

Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this judgment, the 1^st respondent District Collector shall take an appropriate decision in the matter, strictly in accordance

¶38

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

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶41

AV/4/3

¶42

-6-

¶43

WP(C).No.1489 OF 2021(I)

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE WILL DATED 31.12.2004. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 27.08.2014. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 08.02.2019. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30.03.2019. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT 02.06.2019. EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 17.08.2019. EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.01.2020. EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.11.2019. EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR UNDER RTI ACT. DATED 09.11.2020 EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF THE REPLY UNDER THE RTI ACT DATED 14.11.2020. EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF THE DECISION IN 2001 KLT 117 DATED 08.09.2001. EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF THE DECISION IN 2010 0 AIR (MAD) 34 DATED 02.09.2009.

Sheeba Suresh, v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheeba Suresh, v. District Collector

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

Haridas Nanji and Sons Vs State of Kerala

S Suhail.T Vs the District Police Chief

K.K.Abdul Gafoor Vs the District Police Chief

M/S.Vishwas Chits & Investments (P) Limited (in Liquidation) Vs Sri.Santhosh.a.K.

Tower Vision India Private Limited Vs the Commissioner of Police (Kochi City)

Manappuram Home Finance Limited Vs Rajesh N.P.