Sunil Kumar vs State Of Kerala And Ors

The petitioner, who is stated to be the absolute owner in possession of 2.02 ares of land in Re.Survey No.56/23 (old Survey No.240/2) of Edakunni

Village of Thrissur Taluk covered by Sale deed bearing No.1482/1/2019 of the Sub Registrar Office, Cherppu, has filed this writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent Tahsildar (LR), Thrissur to consider and pass orders on

Ext.P7 application dated 02.11.2020 submitted under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, within a time limit fixed by this Court. The

petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 5th respondent Village Officer to make additional entries in the Basic Tax Register

and Thandaper Account to change the classification of the property comprised in Re.Survey No. 56/23 (old Survey No.240/2) as dry land

(Purayidom).

On 13.11.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

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

The grievance of the petitioner is the delay in consideration of Ext.P7 application dated 02.11.2020 made before the 4th respondent Tahsildar (LR),

which is one made under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, to reassess the land tax in respect of the aforesaid property.

The learned Government Pleader would submit that the 4th respondent will consider and take an appropriate decision on Ext.P7 application dated

02.11.2020, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the consideration of that application may be with a notice to the petitioner.

Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 4th respondent

Tahsildar (LR) to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 application dated 02.11.2020 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.

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.

Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this judgment, the 4th 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.