Gracy Varghese vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 29, 2021

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1594887

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1594887
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Anil K.Narendran
Decided On: Jan 29, 2021
Case Number: WP(C)/1292/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gracy Varghese

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....2 and 3 to forthwith conduct and conclude measurement of the property mentioned in ext.p1 title deed and fix the boundaries as requested in exts.p3 and p4 applications or point out the boundaries based on such requests as contemplated under rule 27 and rule 43 of the kerala survey and boundaries rules, 1964.2. on 18.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned government pleader was directed to get instructions.3. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned government pleader appearing for the respondents.4. the learned government pleader, on instructions, would submit that the 2nd respondent thasildar (lr) has already forwarded exts.p3 and p4 applications to the 3rd -3- respondent taluk surveyor for necessary action and that, the 3rd respondent shall do the needful and finalise the proceedings within a time limit to be fixed by this court.5. having considered the submissions made by thelearned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent taluk surveyor to consider and pass appropriate orders on exts.p3 and p4 applications made by the petitioner, 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.6. in state of u.p. v. harish chandra [(1996) 9scc 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] theapex 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.-4-7. therefore, in terms of the direction contained inthis judgment, the 3rd respondent taluk.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 9TH MAGHA, 1942 PETITIONER : GRACY VARGHESE,AGED 55 YEARS W/O VARGHESE, NELLANIKKAL HOUSE, IDUKKI COLONY P.O. THANNIKKANDAM KARA, IDUKKI VILLAGE, IDUKKI TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 602. BY ADVS. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.P.J.JOSE RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 695 001. * 2 THE TAHSILDAR,
IDUKKI TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, IDUKKI COLONY P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 602. DESCRIPTION OF R2 IN THE CAUSE TITLE IS SUO MOTU CORRECTED AS TAHSILDAR (LR), TALUK OFFICE, IDUKKI COLONY P.O,IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 602 VIDE ORDER DATED 29/01/2021. 3 THE TALUK SURVEYOR, IDUKKI TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, IDUKKI COLONY P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 602. R BY SMT A.C VIDHYA - GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 29.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -2-

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who claims to be the owner in possession of a property having an extent of 16 Ares and 20 Sq.meter in Sy.No.161/1 pt. of Idukki Taluk, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to forthwith conduct and conclude measurement of the property mentioned in Ext.P1 title deed and fix the boundaries as requested in Exts.P3 and P4 applications or point out the boundaries based on such requests as contemplated under Rule 27 and Rule 43 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Rules, 1964.

2. On 18.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

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

4. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the 2nd respondent Thasildar (LR) has already forwarded Exts.P3 and P4 applications to the 3rd -3- respondent Taluk Surveyor for necessary action and that, the 3rd respondent shall do the needful and finalise the proceedings within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent Taluk Surveyor to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P3 and P4 applications made by the petitioner, 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.

6. 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.

-4-

7. Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in

this judgment, the 3rd respondent Taluk Surveyor shall take 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. Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE AV/01/02 -5- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 15.03.2016 BEARING NO. 470/2016 OF SRO, THOPRAMKUDY. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 07.06.2020. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION

DATED 04.01.2021 SUBMITTED UNDER RULE 43 OF THE KERALA SURVEY AND BOUNDARIES, RULES, 1961 BEFORE THE 2ND EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04.01.2021 SUBMITTED UNDER RULE 27 OF THE KERALA SURVEY AND BOUNDARIES, RULES 1961 BEFORE THE 2ND EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE 2ND

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2021 Same Parties Gracy Varghese vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Anil K.Narendran