C.K.MATHEW v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.14813 of 2019** ## **PETITIONER:** **C.K.MATHEW, AGED 64 YEARS S/O.MATHAI, KANNAMALIL HOUSE, PANDAGARI PO, EDATHWA, ALAPPUZHA-699721. BY ADV. SMT.V.VIJITHA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE STATE OF KERALA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,**| ||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| |**2**|**REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,**| ||**THODANKULANGARA, ALAPPUZHA-688013.**| |**3**|**LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURAL**| ||**OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VEEYAPURAM,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA-690514.**| |**4**|**VEEYAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PAAYIPAAD PO,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED**| ||**BY ITS SECRETARY, -690514.**| |**5**|**THE SECRETARY, VEEYAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,**| ||**ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690514.**| -2- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 **6 DISTRICT LEVEL AUTHORISED COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPUZHA-688001.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.ARUNKUMAR SRI.P.SHAMMI NAVAS SRI MANU RAJ K.J- GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** -3- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner of 90.80 Ares of land in Sy.No.34/4-2 of Veeyapuram Village in Alappuzha District, which is covered by Ext.P1 settlement deed No.2881/I/10 dated 19.08.2010 of the Sub Registrar Office, Haripad and Ext.P2 tax receipt dated 02.03.2018, has filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to allow Ext.P3 application preferred by the petitioner for reclamation of 10 cents of the paddy land from the total extent of 90.80 Ares of land in Sy.No.34/4-2 of Veeyapuram Village; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent to pass appropriate orders in Ext.P7 communication issued by the 3[rd] respondent Local Level Monitoring Committee and the 6[th] respondent District Level Authorised Committee to initiate further proceedings in Ext.P3 application, in the light of Ext.P6 recommendation dated 29.06.2012 of the 3[rd] respondent. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 -4- commanding the 2[nd] respondent to pass appropriate orders in Ext.P8 representation dated 23.05.2018 made by the petitioner, within a time limit to be specified by this Court. 2. On 29.05.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 3 and 6. Urgent notice on admission by speed post was ordered to respondents 4 and 5, returnable within two weeks. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and 6 and also the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5. 4. The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for a writ of mandamus commanding the 6[th] respondent to consider Ext.P3 application, whereby a request has been made for reclamation of 10 cents of paddy land out of 90.80 Ares covered by Ext.P1 settlement deed, invoking the provisions under Section 9 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. 5. The petitioner acquired right over that paddy land -5- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 on the strength of Ext.P1 settlement deed dated 19.08.2010, which is one executed by his father, namely, Mathai Mathai. The fact that the land covered by Ext.P1 settlement deed is surrounded by paddy lands is not in dispute and the said fact is evident from the Schedule to Ext.P1 settlement deed. The said settlement deed is one executed by the petitioner's father Mathai Mathai, who was then residing at 'Kannammalil House' at Edathwa Village in Alappuzha District. The petitioner is also residing at 'Kannammalil House' as discernible from Ext.P3 application. 6. Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, was enacted to conserve the paddy land and wetland and to restrict the conversion or reclamation thereof, in order to promote growth in the agricultural sector and to sustain the ecological system in the State of Kerala. Clause (iii) of Section 2 of the Act defines the term 'conversion' to mean the situation whereby, land that has been under paddy farming and its allied constructions like drainage channels, ponds, canals, bunds and ridges are put to use for any other -6- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 purpose. Clause (xii) of Section 2 defines the term 'paddy land' to mean all types of land situated in the State where paddy is cultivated at least once in a year or suitable for paddy cultivation but uncultivated and left fallow, and includes its allied constructions like bunds, drainage channels, ponds and canals; Clause (xviii) of Section 2 defines the term 'wetland' to mean land lying between terrestrial and aquatic systems, where the water table is usually at or near the surface or which is covered by shallow water or characterised by the presence of sluggishly moving or standing water, saturating the soil with water and includes backwaters, estuary, fens, lagoon, mangroves, marshes, salt marsh and swamp forests but does not include paddy lands and rivers. 7. Section 3 of the Act deals with prohibition of conversion or reclamation of paddy land. As per sub-section (1), on and from the date of commencement of this Act, the owner, occupier or the person in custody of any paddy land shall not undertake any activity for the conversion or reclamation of such paddy land, except in accordance with the -7- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 provisions of this Act. As per sub-section (2), nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to the cultivation of any intermediary crops that are cultivated without changing the ecological nature of that paddy land or the strengthening of the outer bunds for protecting the cultivation. 8. As per clause (i) of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, the Local Level Monitoring Committee shall have the power, subject to the provisions of the said Act, to recommend to the District Level Authorised Committee for the reclamation of paddy land, for construction of residential building of the owner of the paddy land. As per the proviso to clause (i), the Local Level Monitoring Committee shall not recommend for filling of paddy land of more than an extent of 4.04 Ares in Panchayat or an extent of 2.02 Ares in Municipality/ Corporation area, as the case may be, for the construction of residential building of the owner of the paddy land. 9. Section 9 of the Act deal with constitution of District Level Authorised Committee. As per sub-section (1) of -8- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 Section 9, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3, each Collector shall constitute in the District, District Level Authorised Committee for considering the applications for reclamation of paddy land for the construction of residential building to the owner of paddy land and for taking suitable decision. As per proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 9, the District Level Authorised Committee shall not take any decision granting permission for the filling up of paddy land for the construction of residential building exceeding an extent of 4.04 Ares in a Panchayat and an extent of 2.02 Ares in a Municipality/Corporation, as the case may be. As per subsection (5) of Section 9, the District Level Authorised Committee shall take decision on the recommendations made available to it within one month. 10. As per sub-section (8) of Section 9 of the Act, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no application shall be considered by the District Level Authorised Committee, unless the Local Level Monitoring Committee has recommended that such reclamation shall not adversely affect -9- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 the ecological condition and the cultivation in the adjoining paddy land; the owner of the paddy land or his family do not own a suitable land for this purpose in that District; the building to be constructed is for his own purpose; and such paddy land is not situated surrounded by other paddy lands. As per sub-section (9) of Section 9, the order issued by the District Level Authorised Committee under sub-section (5) or the District Collector under sub-section (7) shall clearly indicate the survey number of the land and the extent of the land in each survey number for which sanction has been accorded. A sketch of such land indicating the aforementioned details shall be appended to the order. 11. As per sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, an application for reclamation of paddy land for the construction of residential building for the owner of the paddy land shall be submitted before the Local Level Monitoring Committee in Form No.1, after remitting the requisite Court fee of Rs.10/-. As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, the Local Level Monitoring -10- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 Committee has to obtain an enquiry report from the Agricultural Officer and Village Officer on the matters enumerated in sub-section (7) of Section 9 and thereafter, place that application before the District Level Authorised Committee with its recommendations. Then, the District Level Authorised Committee shall take a decision on that recommendation made by the Local Level Monitoring Committee, within the time limit specified in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5. In the application submitted in Form No.1, the applicant has to give a declaration that such reclamation shall not adversely affect the ecological condition and the cultivation in the adjoining paddy land; the applicant, who is the owner of the paddy land or his family do not own a suitable land for this purpose in that District; the building to be constructed is for his own purpose; and such paddy land is not situated surrounded by other paddy lands. 12. In **Thankachan K.S. v. District Collector, Alappuzha and others [2017 (3) KHC 402]** , in the context of sub-section (8) of Section 9 of the Kerala Conservation of -11- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 Paddy Land and Wetland Act, this Court held that the purpose of exemption is for building a residential house in a paddy land held by the owner. The specific word employed in Section 9 of the Act is 'considering the applications for reclamation of paddy land for the construction of residential building to the owner of the paddy land'. The intention is to provide the cultivator/farmer/agriculturist with a residence within his cultivable paddy land. A property purchased for the purpose of constructing residential building, after implementation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, cannot be exempted. Such an exercise could lead to gross misuse, since, then, large extents of paddy land could be cut up into small properties and sold to different individuals, who could then separately seek exemption. Different members of a family could also claim exemption for small tracts of land, out of a commonly held paddy land; citing a desire to have an independent existence. That would be defeating the very object of the enactment, which has the preservation of paddy lands at its core. If each member of the family is excluded, -12- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 then the statutory restriction would be rendered in effective and otiose. Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the said decision read thus; “5. The petitioner relies on a decision of this Court, reported in Joseph Thomas v. Agricultural Officer, Alappuzha and others, 2015 (5) KHC 103. A reading of the decision indicates that 'Family' as referred under S.9(8)(ii) of the Paddy Land Act was found to be the family consisting of applicant, his wife and children and it cannot be stretched to an extent to include his father or grandfather. On facts the present case can be distinguished. In the present case, the father claims exemption and the rejection has been on the ground that the family has another property. If each member of the family is excluded according to the person before Court, then, the statutory restriction would be rendered ineffective and otiose. 6. It is also to be noticed that the purpose of exemption is for building a residential house in a paddy land held by the owner. The specific words employed in Section 9 of the Paddy Land Act is '... considering the applications for reclamation of paddy land for the construction of residential building to the owner of paddy land' (emphasis supplied). The intention is to provide the cultivator/farmer/ agriculturist with a residence within his cultivable paddy land. Here, about 10 cents of paddy land -13- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 was purchased by the petitioner for the purpose of constructing a residential building, that too, in 2014 after the implementation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. It is the said land which was sought to be exempted. 7. Such an exercise could lead to gross misuse, since, then, large extents of paddy land could be cut up into small properties and sold to different individuals, who could then separately seek exemption. Different members of a family could also claim exemption for small tracts of land, out of a commonly held paddy land; citing a desire to have an independent existence. That would be defeating the very object of the enactment, which has the preservation of paddy lands at its core. This Court is not inclined to permit such exemption, especially since both the LLMC and DLAC has declined the claim and a contrary direction would go against the clear statutory interdict.” 13. In the instant case, the petitioner is residing at Kannammalil House at Edathwa Village in Alappuzha District, as discernible from Ext.P3 application, whereby a request has been made for reclamation of 10 cents of paddy land out of 90.80 Ares in Survey No.34/4-2 of Veeyapuram Village in Alappuzha District covered by Ext.P1 settlement deed. The petitioner's father Mathai Mathai was also residing at -14- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 Kannammalil House as evident from Ext.P1 settlement deed. In Ext.P3 application, the petitioner has stated that he is residing at Kannammalil House on rent. In the application, the petitioner has given a declaration he or his family do not own a suitable land for the construction of a residential building in the district, (i.e., Alappuzha District) and that the property in question is not surrounded by other paddy lands. However, in Ext.P8 representation made before the 2nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, the petitioner has stated that he is residing at Edathwa Village in the ancestral home and also in rented house, with the help of his brother and he do not own any property in Edathwa Village. 14. Ext.P6 minutes of the 3rd respondent Local Level Monitoring Committee dated 29.06.2012, would show that an earlier application made by the petitioner for reclamation of paddy land for construction of residential building was not recommended by the Local Level Monitoring Committee in its meeting held on 03.08.2011 since entire extent of 90.80 Ares was lying as paddy land, which was cultivated with paddy at -15- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 the time of submission of that application. As evident from the Schedule to Ext.P1 settlement deed dated 19.08.2010, the entire extent of 90.80 Ares owned by the petitioner is surrounded by paddy lands. In view of the prohibition contained in sub-section (8) of Section 9 of the Act, the 3rd respondent Local Level Monitoring Committee cannot recommend reclamation of a paddy land surrounded by other paddy lands. 15. **Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145]** a ThreeJudge Bench of the Apex Court held that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions with in the limit of their jurisdiction. Paragraph 15 of the said decision reads thus; -16- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 " **15.** .......... There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions with in the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute to enforce its performance. (See Lekhraj Satramdas Lalvani v. Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer [1966 (1) SCR 120 : AIR 1966 SC 334], Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College [1962 Supp (2) SCR 144 : AIR 1962 SC 1210] and Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar [(1973) 1 SCC 485 : AIR 1973 SC 964]. In the instant case, it has not been shown by respondent No. 1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that respondent No. 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Art.226 of -17- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same." (underline supplied) 16. In **Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal** **Jain [(2008) 2 SCC 280]** the Apex Court held that, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. In the said decision, the Apex Court noticed the principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in 'The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr. that, mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said decision read thus; " **11.** The principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in 'The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies' by F. G. Ferris and F. G. Ferris, Jr. : Note 187.- Mandamus, at common law, is a -18- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duly to which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed. Note 192.- Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and Tribunals exercising public functions within -19- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty. Note 196.- Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the Court, subject always to the well settled principles which have been established by the Courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and Judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the Court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned - an interest which private litigants are apt to over look when striving for private ends. The Court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances. Note 206.- .......... The correct rule is that mandamus will not lie where the duty is -20- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 clearly discretionary and the party upon whom the duty rests has exercised his discretion reasonably and within his jurisdiction, that is, upon facts sufficient to support his action. **12.** These very principles have been adopted in our country. In **Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145 : AIR 1977 SC 2149]** , after referring to the earlier decisions in **Lekhraj Satramdas Lalvani v. N.M. Shah [AIR 1966 SC 334]** , **Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur v. Nalanda College [AIR 1962 SC 1210]** and **Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar [(1973) 1 SCC 485 : AIR 1973 SC 964]** , this Court observed as follows in paragraph 15 of the reports: "15. .......... There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of the officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate Tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the -21- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. ......... In the instant case, it has not been shown by respondent No. 1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that respondent No. 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Art.226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same." Therefore, in order that a writ of mandamus may be issued, there must be a legal right with the party asking for the writ to compel the performance of some statutory duty cast upon the authorities. The respondents have not been able to show that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on the appellant bank to declare their account as NPA from 31[st] March, 2000 and apply RBI guidelines to their case." ## 17. In **State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9** -22- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 **SCC 309]** the Apex Court held that, under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But 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. Paragraph 10 of the said decision reads thus; " **10.** Notwithstanding the aforesaid Statutory Rule and without applying the mind to the aforesaid Rule the High Court relying upon some earlier decisions of the court came to hold that the list does not expire after a period of one year which on the face of its erroneous. Further question that arises in this context is whether the High Court was justified in issuing the mandamus to the appellant to make recruitment of the Writ Petitioners. Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the Court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and said -23- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 right was subsisting on the date of the petition. The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution or a Statute or by Rules or orders having the force of law. But 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. This being the position and in view of the Statutory Rules contained in Rule 26 of the Recruitment Rules we really fail to understand how the High Court issue the impugned direction to recruit the respondents who were included in the select list prepared on 4.4.87 and the list no longer survived after one year and the rights, if any, of persons included in the list did not subsist. ......." 18. 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. Vide: **State of Punjab v. Renuka Singla [(1996) 8 SCC 90]** , **State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [1996 (9) SCC 309]** , **Union of** -24- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 **India v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. [(1996) 4 SCC 453]** , **University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra [(1997) 10 SCC 264]** and **Karnataka SRTC v. Ashrafulla Khan [(2002) 2 SCC 560]** . 19. In **Vinod Kumar v. District Geologist and others [2019 (3) KHC 79]** in the context of Rule 14 of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015, this Court held that if the application made seeking permission under sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 for mineral transit pass is not supported by the mandatory documents as per the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14, and also an affidavit as per the mandate of sub-rule (3) of Rule 14, it cannot be said that there is any failure on the part of the District Geologist in discharging his statutory obligations, so as to enable the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus for considering that application. When the application made by the petitioner is not supported by the mandatory documents, as per the provisos to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14, and also an affidavit as -25- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 per the mandate of sub-rule (3) of Rule 14, this Court cannot direct the District Geologist to consider that application in contravention of the statutory provisions, as no mandamus can be issued to do something which is contrary to law. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. **Sd/-** **ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE** das -26- W.P.(C). No. 14813 of 2019 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.2881/1/10 OF SRO HARIPPAD.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 2.03.2018.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 08.12.2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT HELD ON 29.06.2012.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT PREFERRED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 23.05.2018 PREFERRED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**