Disposed

Jayaprakashan @ Prakash, v. Revenue Divisional Offcer

Kerala HC19 Jan 2021WP(C)/828/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by property owners seeking mandamus to compel the Revenue Divisional Officer to decide a pending appeal within a specified time limit, directing the Tahsildar to submit the required report.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd respondent to forward report to 1st respondent within one month; 1st respondent to decide appeal within two months upon receipt.

Jayaprakashan @ Prakash, Vs Revenue Divisional Offcer — Property and Title | 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 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

W.P.(C) No.828 OF 2021(C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JAYAPRAKASHAN @ PRAKASH, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. BASKARAN, SREEKRISHNA, CHENTHUPOORU, VENKODE P.O, VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 028

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.BASANT BALAJI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFCER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 043.

¶11

2 TAHSILDAR L R, TALUK OFFICE, EAST FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE ATTIPRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 583.

¶13

R1-R3 SMT A.C.VIDHYA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C) No.828 OF 2021(C)

¶16

-2-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner, along with his sister Prathibha, are the owners in possession of 7 cents of property in Survey No.362/7 in Block No.17 of Attipra Village, which was purchased by their father Sri.Bhaskaran Vaidyan as per sale deed No.263 dated 22.01.1953 of the Sub Registrar Office, Kazhakkoottam. The property originally belonged to Madhavan Keshavan as per partition deed No.4996/1951 of the Sub Registrar Office, Kazhakkoottam. 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 Revenue Divisional Officer to consider Ext.P8 appeal filed against Ext.P7 order dated 13.03.2019 of the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar (LR) and dispose of the same, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶19

On 13.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions as to whether any orders have already been passed on Ext.P8 appeal.

¶20

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

¶21

W.P.(C) No.828 OF 2021(C)

¶22

-3-

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P8 appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 18 of Transfer of Registry Rules, challenging Ext.P7 order dated 13.03.2019 of the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar (LR), is now pending consideration before the 1^st respondent. The Appellate Authority has already called for a report from the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar (LR).

¶24

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the 1^st respondent is yet to receive the report of the 2^nd respondent and on receipt of the same, appropriate decision will be taken on Ext.P8 appeal.

¶25

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 2^nd respondent to forward the report, as sought for in Ext.P11, to the 1^st respondent, if not already forwarded, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer shall consider Ext.P8 appeal filed by the petitioner, with notice to the petitioner and other affected parties and take an appropriate decision, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a further period of two months.

¶26

W.P.(C) No.828 OF 2021(C)

¶27

-4-

¶28

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

¶29

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

Therefore, the direction contained in this judgment to the 1^st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer is for taking an appropriate decision in the matter, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the relevant statutory provisions and also the law on the point.

¶31

No order as to costs.

¶32

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶33

bpr

¶34

W.P.(C) No.828 OF 2021(C)

¶35

-5-

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 1253/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD 17.09.2015 IN O.S. NO. 1253/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S. NO. 1253/2012.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.06.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 07.01.2019 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 13.03.2019.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD 15.04.2019.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07.05.2019.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 02.09.2019 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 26.09.2019 SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

Jayaprakashan @ Prakash, v. Revenue Divisional Offcer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaprakashan @ Prakash, v. Revenue Divisional Offcer

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

Shahnas K.T. Vs the Special Thahsildar (Lr)

Alavi Thottumugath, Vs the Special Thahsildar (Lr)

Muhammed Abdurahiman Vs the Special Thahsildar (Lr)

K.J Kuriachan Vs the Tahsildar (L.R)

Muraleedharan, Vs State of Kerala

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. Vs State of Kerala