Valasan Matathil vs Taluk Surveyor And Ors

The petitioner, who is the Manager of Desabandhu Higher Secondary School, Thachampara in Palakkad District, which owns two items of property

having an extent of 2 acres 66 cents in Re.Sy.Nos.41/2A and 41/3A, and 1 acre 17 cents in Re.Sy.No.41/2B of Sub Registrar Office, Mannarkkad,

has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Taluk Surveyor

to conduct a survey of the property, as requested in Ext.P4 representation dated 01.11.2020 and issue sketch to the petitioner within a time frame to

be fixed by this Court. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to conduct the survey and demarcation

of the property as requested in Ext.P5 and issue a sketch to the petitioner within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

During the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner has submitted Exts.P6 and P7 applications dated 20.11.2020 before the additional 3rd

respondent Tahsildar, Mannarkkad for survey and demarcation of the aforesaid properties, after remitting the requisite fee, as evidenced by Ext.P8

receipt dated 27.11.2020.

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

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Exts.P6 and P7 applications made by the petitioner in the prescribed form, after remitting

the requisite fee, are now pending consideration before the additional 3rd respondent Tahsildar.

The learned Government Pleader would submit that the additional 3rd respondent will consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P6 and P7

applications, in case those applications are in order, with notice to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any, and after affording them an

opportunity of being heard.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the additional 3rd

respondent Tahsildar to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P6 and P7 applications made by the petitioner, in case those applications are in

order and the petitioner has complied with the statutory requirements, with notice to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any, and after affording

them an opportunity of being heard, 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 additional 3rd respondent Tahsildar 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.