Disposed

Jisha John, v. the District Collector

Kerala HC8 Jan 2021WP(C)/244/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, in a writ petition, addressed the petitioner's request for transfer of land registry and acceptance of tax. It dispensed with notice to the husband (4th respondent) and directed the Village Officer to consider the transfer application promptly while ensuring strict adherence to statutory provisions.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Village Officer to consider the transfer of registry application and pass appropriate orders within one month, serving notice to the petitioner and 4th respondent.

Jisha John, Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 18TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

W.P.(C) No.244 OF 2021(E)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

JISHA JOHN, AGED 30 YEARS, W/O. THOMAS JOHN, CHARIVUKALAYIL VEEDU, ANGAMOOZHI VALUPARA, KOCHUKOICKAL P.O., KUMARAMPEROOR VADAKKEKARA MURI, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 667.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SRI.T.S.SARATH SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.

¶11

2 THE TAHASILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 691.

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE OF CHITTAR, CHITTAR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 663.

¶13

4 THOMAS JOHN, AGED 37 YEARS

¶14

S/O. JOHN, CHARIVUKALAYIL VEEDU, ANGAMOOZHI VALUPARA, KOCHUKOICKAL P.O., KUMARAMPEROOR VADAKKEKARA MURI, SEETHATHODU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 667.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SMT A.C.VIDHYA -GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C) No.244 OF 2021(E)

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 3^rd respondent Village Officer, Chittar, to accept Ext.P2 application dated 16.10.2020, seeking transfer of Registry, in respect of the property having an extent of 06.07 ares of land comprised in Survey No.946/1 of Chittar Village, which is in the name of the petitioner and her husband, who is arrayed as the 4^th respondent. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to effect transfer of registry of the land purchased as per Ext.P1, in favour of the title holders therein, within a time frame fixed by this Court; and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 3 to accept land tax from the title holders as per Ext.P1 sale deed.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted, service of notice on the 4^th respondent is dispensed with.

¶23

In the writ petition, the petitioner is seeking consideration of Ext.P2 application for transfer of Registry.

¶24

The learned Government Pleader would submit that if Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner for transfer of Registry

¶25

W.P.(C) No.244 OF 2021(E)

¶26

¶27

is in order and the same is still pending consideration, the 3^rd respondent Village Officer shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, with notice to the petitioner and also the 4^th respondent.

¶28

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 3^rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner for transfer of Registry, with notice to the petitioner and also the 4^th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶29

In State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 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 of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law.

¶30

W.P.(C) No.244 OF 2021(E)

¶31

¶32

Therefore, the 3^rd respondent shall take an appropriate

¶33

decision on the matter, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the relevant statutory provisions and also the law on the point.

¶34

No order as to costs.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

ANIL K. NARENDRAN

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

MIN

¶39

W.P.(C) No.244 OF 2021(E)

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.805/2020 OF SRO, PERUNAD. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16.10.2020 SEEKING TRANSFER OF REGISTRY. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.6.2019 IN WPC NO.14389/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Jisha John, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jisha John, v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhavi Vs the Special Tahsildar (Lr)

P.T. Joy, Vs Tahsildar

Mr.S.Chandramany Vs the District Collector

Mangalam College of Education Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Benny Sebastian, Vs the District Collector

Sanjai Jimson Vs State of Kerala