Disposed

Bushrabeevi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Mar 2021WP(C)/2501/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged revenue records entries showing her property as government land. The High Court entered a direction for the District Collector to consider the petitioner's rectification request expeditiously with notice to affected parties and a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation with notice and hearing within two months.

Bushrabeevi Vs State of Kerala — 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

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.2501 OF 2021(K)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BUSHRABEEVI AGED 53 YEARS W/O. FAZALUDEEN, RESIDING AT THAHA MANZIL, KARIKKUZHI, PANAVOOR, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.S.JATHIN DAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNEMNT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 043.

¶12

3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541. 4 THAHASILDAR NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541. 5 VILLAGE OFFICER ANAD VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 541.

¶13

BY SMT.AMMINIKKUTTY, GOVT. PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.2501 OF 2021(K)

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner, who is the owner of 8 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.1766/2 of Anad Village in Nedumangadu Taluk of Thiruvananthapuram District, covered by Ext.P1 Settlement Deed No.1975/1989 of the Sub Registrar Office, Nedumangadu executed by her father, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to delete the entry 'Government puramboke' in revenue records and include the name of the petitioner as the owner of the property. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent District Collector to consider Ext.P11 representation dated 15.01.2021 within a time frame; a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2, 4 and 5 to collect tax of the said property and issue possession and location certificates in the name of the petitioner; and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to pay tax for the property which she obtained by Exts.P3 and P4. Going by the averments in the writ petition, in the fair value notification and also in revenue records, the property of the petitioner is shown as sarkar thodu pramboke. In Ext.P9 report

¶19

¶20

WP(C).No.2501 OF 2021(K)

¶21

of the 4^th respondent Tahsildar, the property of the petitioner is mentioned as 'sarkar thodu puramboke'. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner moved Ext.P11 representation dated 15.01.2021 before the 2^nd respondent District Collector, seeking rectification of entries in revenue records.

¶22

On 01.02.2021 when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

¶23

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

¶24

The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the 2^nd respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders on Ex.P11 representation filed by the petitioner, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that consideration of Ex.P11 representation may be with notice to the petitioner and after affording her a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

¶26

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on both

¶27

¶28

WP(C).No.2501 OF 2021(K)

¶29

sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2^nd respondent District Collector to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ex.P11 representation, if that representation is still pending consideration, with notice to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any, and after affording them 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.

¶30

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.

¶31

Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this judgment, the 2^nd respondent shall take an appropriate decision in

¶32

WP(C).No.2501 OF 2021(K)

¶33

¶34

the matter, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the

¶35

relevant statutory provisions and also the law on the point.

¶36

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

JUDGE

WP(C).No.2501 OF 2021(K)

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 8.6.1989.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ANAD PANCHAYATH TO THAHASILDAR, NEDUMANGADU DATED 29.9.1989.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 26.2.1991.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA CERTIFICATE DATED 10.4.1991 ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR, NEDUMANGAD WITH PLAN.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ANAD VILLAGE DATED 30.11.2020.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF FAIR VALUE LIST WITH WRONG ENTRY ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR, NEDUMANGAD.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT, RDO DATED 6.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF REPORT PREPARED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 24.10.2017 AND FORWARDED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT THAHASILDAR DATED 22.11.2017.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 6.1.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 15.1.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Bushrabeevi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bushrabeevi v. State of Kerala

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

Jayalakshmi, Vs the Station House Officer

Abdul Kalam Vs State of Kerala

Abdulraheem Vs Smt.Dr.Priya Mohan

Mathew Joseph Vs the Commissioner of Police

Dr. Jaison Vs the District Police Chief and Commissioner of Police

Abdul Gafoor Vs Land Tribunal, (Land Reforms)