Vijayakumar K vs Commissioner For Land Revenue

The petitioner, who is stated to be in possession and enjoyment of 3.92 ares of land in Sy.No.212/1 of Elappara Village, submitted Ext.P1 application dated 12.08.2015, before the Land Assignment Officer, Peermade. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Commissioner for Land Revenue to consider and pass orders on Ext.P13 revision petition dated 15.02.2021 filed under sub-rule (8) of Rule 21 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules within a time limit to be fixed by this Court, with a further direction to keep in abeyance the eviction proceedings pursuant to Exts.P10 and P12 till a decision is taken in Ext.P13 revision petition.

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

As can be seen from the pleadings and materials on record, the application made by the petitioner for assignment of land was rejected by Ext.P10 order dated 21.10.2019 of the 3rd respondent Special Tahsildar, Peermade. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P10 order, the petitioner filed appeal before the 2nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, under sub-rule (1) of Rule 21, which also ended in dismissal by Ext.P12 order dated 08.01.2021. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P12 order the petitioner moved Ext.P13 revision before the 1st respondent Commissioner of Land Revenue, invoking the provisions under sub-rule (8) of Rule 21 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, which is now pending consideration, as evidenced by Ext.P13(6) receipt dated 17.02.2021.

Therefore, it is for the revisional authority to take an appropriate decision on that revision, after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Seeking stay of further proceedings pursuant to the order impugned in the revision petition, the petitioner has to file an application before the 1st respondent revisional authority.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P13 revision petition filed by the petitioner under sub-rule (8) of Rule 21 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 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. Along with the certified copy of this judgment the petitioner shall file an application for interim relief in Ext.P13 revision petition, which the 1st respondent shall consider within a period of one week from the date of receipt of such application.

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 1st 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.