Disposed

M.C.Pappy v. District Collector

Kerala HC13 Jan 2021WP(C)/21805/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a landowner regarding land shortage due to resurvey anomalies. The court directed the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's revision petition under the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act with notice and an opportunity of being heard within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider the revision petition with notice and hearing within three months.

M.C.Pappy Vs District Collector — 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.21805 OF 2020(A)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

M.C.PAPPY, AGED 86 YEARS S/O.CHOWRY, MADATHIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHUVYPU, PIN-682508, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.T.N.SURESH SMT.DHANUJA VETTATHU

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682030. 2 ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, RESURVEY SECTION, TALUK OFFICE, KOCHI, GROUND FLOOR, KB JACOB RD, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI, KERALA-682001.

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

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

¶14

WP(C).No.21805 OF 2020(A)

¶15

-2-

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner in possession and enjoyment of 11.93 Ares of land comprised in Sy.No.1541/4 of Elankunnapuzha Village covered by Ext.P1 patta L.A.No.399 of 1968 issued by the Tahsildar, Fort Kochi, 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 complaint in a time bound manner to set at right the anomalies in the resurvey, which has resulted in shortage of an extent of 3.08 Ares of land; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation and take immediate action to redress the grievance of the petitioner in Ext.P4, in a time bound manner.

¶18

On 15.10.2020 when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

¶19

During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has filed Ext.P8 revision petition dated 04.01.2021 before the 1^st respondent District Collector, invoking Section 13A(1) of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961, for

¶20

WP(C).No.21805 OF 2020(A)

¶21

-3-

¶22

rectifying the anomalies in resurvey records in relation to his property.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also

¶24

the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶25

The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the 1^st respondent will consider and pass appropriate orders on Ex.P8 revision petition filed by the petitioner, if that petition is in order and the same is pending consideration, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that consideration of Ext.P8 revision petition may be with notice to the petitioner and after affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

¶27

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 revision petition, if that petition is in order and

¶28

the same is pending consideration, with notice to the petitioner and other affected parties and after affording them an

¶29

WP(C).No.21805 OF 2020(A)

¶30

-4-

¶31

opportunity of being heard, within a period of three months 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 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

¶34

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.

¶35

Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this judgment, the 1^st respondent shall take an appropriate decision on the matter, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the relevant statutory provisions and also the law on the point.

¶36

No order as to costs.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶39

bkn/-

¶40

WP(C).No.21805 OF 2020(A)

¶41

-5-

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LA NO.399/1968 ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR FORT KOCHI. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.12.1989 ISSUED BY ELANKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 12.4.1994 ISSUED BY ELANKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE OFFICE. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 29.5.2020 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶45

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.8.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH REGISTERED POST TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶46

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT OF THE EXHIBIT P5.

¶47

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT DATED 6.9.2020 TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT.

¶48

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED U/S 13A(1) OF THE SURVEY AND BOUNDARIES ACT, 1964 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

M.C.Pappy v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.C.Pappy 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

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

Kunjumon Abraham Vs the State of Kerala

Binu C. Varghese Vs State of Kerala