Dismissed

P.T. Joy, v. Tahsildar

Kerala HC7 Jan 2021WP(C)/23139/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition filed by a property owner seeking refixation of boundaries for aqua farming. The Court directed the Tahsildar to consider the demarcation application expeditiously within two months, in accordance with the law and with notice to affected parties.

What did the court decide?

2nd respondent (Tahsildar) to consider the Ext.P5 application within two months of receiving the certified copy of the judgment.

P.T. Joy, Vs Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | 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 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

W.P.(C) No.23139 OF 2020(N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.T. JOY, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. LATE P.V.VARKEY, OTHANIKKATT HOUSE, ST.FRANCIS XAVIERS CHURCH ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O., KOCHI-18.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SMT.K.S.ARCHANA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PARAVUR, PARAVUR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513.

¶11

2 TALUK SURVEYOR, PARAVUR TALUK, PARAVUR P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513.

¶12

3 EZHIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, EZHIKKARA P.O., PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

4 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, EZHIKKARA, EZHIKKARA P.O., PARAVUR-VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513.

¶14

5 VILLAGE OFFICER, EZHIKKARA VILLAGE, EZHIKKARA P.O., PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513.

¶15

R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶16

R1,R2, SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4&R5

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C) No.23139 OF 2020(N)

¶19

-2-

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner, who is the owner of property having an extent of 49.77 Ares (122.98 cents) in Survey Nos.87/16, 87/15, 87/14, 87/13, 87/12B, 87/19-3, 87/19-2, 87/10, 87/21-3, 87/9, 87/23-2, 87/7, 87/22, 87/22-2, 87/20, 87/18-2, 87/2 and 87/3 of Ezhikkara Village, covered by Ext.P1 sale deed No.2009/2020 of the Sub Registrar Office, North Paravur, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to cause the refixation of the boundaries of the property covered in Ext.P1 sale deed, forthwith, at any rate, within 05.11.2020, for enabling the petitioner to commence the aqua farming in the 1^st week of November, 2020.

¶22

On 19.11.2020, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court issued notice before admission to the respondents. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 and urgent notice by special messenger was ordered to the 3^rd respondent.

¶23

On 04.01.2021, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2021, seeking an order to accept additional documents as Exts.P4(a), P5 and P6. The document marked as Ext.P5 is a copy

¶24

W.P.(C) No.23139 OF 2020(N)

¶25

-3-

¶26

of the application dated 31.12.2020 submitted by the petitioner before the 1^st respondent Tahsildar, for demarcation and survey of his registered holding covered by Ext.P1. The document marked as Ext.P6 is a copy of the receipt issued by the 1^st respondent, on 01.01.2020.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 and also the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent Ezhikkara Grama Panchayat.

¶28

During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner would confine the relief sought for in this writ petition as one for early disposal of Ext.P5 application before the 1^st respondent Tahsildar for demarcation and survey of the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed, within a time limit to be specified by this Court.

¶29

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P5 application made by the petitioner, with notice to the petitioner, the Secretary of the 3^rd respondent Grama Panchayat and any other affected persons and take an appropriate decision, as expeditiously as possible, at any

¶30

W.P.(C) No.23139 OF 2020(N)

¶31

-4-

¶32

rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

Therefore, the direction contained in this judgment to the 1^st respondent Tahsildar to consider Ext.P5 application made by the petitioner is for taking an appropriate decision on that application, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the relevant statutory provisions and also the law on the point.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶40

bpr

¶41

W.P.(C) No.23139 OF 2020(N)

¶42

-5-

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 6.10.2020 O	DOCUMENT NO.2009/2020 F SUB REGISTRY PARAVUR.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF 20.10.2020 ISSUED	THE TAX RECEIPT DATED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE 16.10.2020 SUBMIT BEFORE THE 2ND RE	REPRESENTATION DATED TED BY THE PETITIONER SPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE 17.10.2020 SUBMIT BEFORE THE IST RE	REPRESENTATION DATED TED BY THE PETITIONER SPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE STA OFFICER, ATTACHED 3RD RESPONDENT.	REPLY DATED 12.11.2020 TE PUBLIC INFORMATION TO THE OFFICE OF THE
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE 31.12.2020 SUBMIT BEFORE THE 1ST RE ATTACHED TO THE K BOUNDARIES RULES,	APPLICATION DATED TED BY THE PETITIONER SPONDENT, IN FORM 8, ERALA SURVEY AND 1964.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED FROM THE O RESPONDENT.	RECEIPT NO.11/2021 FFICE OF THE 1ST

¶46

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

P.T. Joy, v. Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.T. Joy, v. Tahsildar

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

M/S.Sudarsan Chits (I) Ltd. (in Liquidation) Vs Sri.Asai Thambi.a

Ravi P.D. Vs Subhan.P.

Indus Towers Limited Vs the District Police Chief(Trivandrum Rural)

India Gateway Terminal Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Madhavi Vs the Special Tahsildar (Lr)

Mr.S.Chandramany Vs the District Collector