Kerala High Court
Ponnappan @ Kunjumon vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2021
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942
W.P.(C) No.595 OF 2021(Y)
PETITIONER/S:
PONNAPPAN @ KUNJUMON
AGED 80 YEARS
S/O. AYYAPPAN, MANDAKATHINKAL HOUSE, KANJIRATHINKAL
DESOM, KUZHUPPULLY ROAD, KATTAKAMBAL VILLAGE,
KATTAKAMBAL P.O., KUNNAMKULAM TALUK, THRISSUR
DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.C.DHEERAJ RAJAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY LOCAL SELF-GOVERNEMNT
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
695 001.
2 VILLAGE OFFICER
KATTAKAMPAL VILLAGE, KATTAKAMPAL P.O., THRISSUR
DISTRICT-680 544.
3 WE-ONE KURIES
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SETHUMATHAVAN, AGED 48
YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, MANATHALA
DESOM, MANATHALA VILLAGE, MANATHALA P.O., THRISSUR
DISTRICT-680 506.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY - SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.595 OF 2021(Y)
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is the owner in possession of 2.24 ares of property in Survey No.895/2 of Kattakampal Village, covered by settlement deed No.401 of 2005, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent Village Officer of Kattakampal Village to issue possession certificate to the petitioner obtaining to the said property.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner stood as surety in the kuri subscribed by one Dhaneesh, conducted by the 3rd respondent. On account of default of monthly installments, the 3rd respondent filed O.S.No.2221 of 2015 before the Munsiff Court, Thrissur and obtained an order of attachment against the property in question. W.P.(C) No.26091 of 2020 filed by the petitioner seeking an order directing the 2nd respondent to accept land tax was closed by Ext.P3 judgment, since the 2nd respondent accepted land tax vide Ext.P2 receipt. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent with a request to issue possession certificate.
3. On 08.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on W.P.(C) No.595 OF 2021(Y) 3 admission for respondents 1 to 2. Urgent notice on admission by speed post was ordered to the 3rd respondent, returnable within three weeks. The learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and
2. Notice issued to the 3rd respondent is not returned after service. Considering the nature of relief proposed to be granted, service of notice on the 3rd respondent is dispenced with.
5. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the 2nd respondent is yet to receive any application by the petitioner for possession certificate, in respect of the property in question. If any such application is received, the 2 nd respondent will consider the same, in accordance with law.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner will submit an application before the 2 nd respondent for possession certificate, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
7. Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions;
W.P.(C) No.595 OF 2021(Y) 4
(i) Within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, the petitioner shall submit a proper application before the 2 nd respondent Village Officer, for possession certificate, after complying with the statutory requirements.
(ii) In case, the application filed by the petitioner is in order and the petitioner has complied with the statutory requirements, the 2nd respondent shall consider and take an appropriate decision on that application, with notice to the petitioner and also to the 3 rd respondent and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
8. 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 W.P.(C) No.595 OF 2021(Y) 5 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.
9. Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this judgment, the 2nd respondent 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.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE MIN W.P.(C) No.595 OF 2021(Y) 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN
O.S.2221/2015 FILED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT,
THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
30.11.2020 IN WPC 26091/2020.