Dismissed

Balan v. Land Tribunal, (Land Reforms)

Kerala HC21 Jan 2021WP(C)/1668/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the Land Tribunal to decide land assignment proceedings within a fixed time. Relying on Bihar Eastern Gangetic, the court held no statutory duty imposed a time-bound obligation, allowing the petitioner to withdraw with rights reserved.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the petitioner's right to approach the Court again in case of future delay.

Balan Vs Land Tribunal, (Land Reforms) — 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

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.1668 OF 2021(G)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BALAN AGED 55 YEARS S/O.NARAYANAN, VALIYAVALAPPIL HOUSE, TANUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 LAND TRIBUNAL, (LAND REFORMS) TIRUR, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679101.

¶11

2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, (LAND REFORMS), LAND TRIBUNAL, TIRUR, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 101.

¶12

R BY SMT. VIDHYA, GOVT.PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

-2-

¶15

WP(C).No.1668 OF 2021(G)

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent Land Tribunal, Tirur to consider and pass orders in S.M.No.09/2021, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. The suo motu proceedings initiated by the Land Tribunal, Tirur under Rule 5 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1970, is one for assignment of the right, title and interest of the landlord vested in the Government under Section 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and for issuance of certificate of purchase under Section 72K of the said Act, read with Rule 14 of the said Rules, in respect of 36.00 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.233/18 of Pariyapuram Village in Malappuram District.

¶18

As evident from Ext.P1 certificate, based on the report of the Village Officer, Pariyapuram Village, the Land Tribunal, Tirur initiated suo motu proceedings as S.M.No.09/2021 only on 08.01.2021.

¶19

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

¶20

-3-

¶21

WP(C).No.1668 OF 2021(G)

¶22

4. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen

¶23

Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145] , a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. Paragraph 15 of the abovesaid decision reads thus:

¶24

“15. There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce

¶25

-4-

¶26

WP(C).No.1668 OF 2021(G)

¶27

its performance. (See Lekhraj Satramdas, Lalvani v. Deputy Custodian-cum-managing Officer and Ors. [1966]1 SCR 120: AIR 1966 SC 334. Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College [1962] Supp. 2 SCR 144: (1962) SC 1210 and Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1973 1 SCC 485: AIR 1973 SC 964. In the instant case, it has not been shown by respondent No.1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable, Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that respondent No.1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same.”

¶28

In view of the law laid down in the decision referred

¶29

to supra, at this point of time, the petitioner cannot seek a writ of mandamus for a time bound consideration of S.M.No.09/2021.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

¶31

that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ petition, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach this Court again, in case there is delay on the part of

¶32

-5-

¶33

WP(C).No.1668 OF 2021(G)

¶34

the respondent in taking a final decision in S.M.No.09/2021.

¶35

Recording the above submission made by the learned

¶36

counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to the aforesaid right of the petitioner.

¶37

Sd/-