High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-02-10Disposed of with directions to complete specifi...

Kumari S. v. Tahasildar (Land Records), Thiruvananthapuram Taluk and others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No.1354 OF 2021(T)

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anil K. Narendran
Judgment Date: 2021-02-10
Court Decision / Holding: disposed of with directions: (i) Tahsildar (Land Records) to obtain the Head Surveyor’s report within two weeks from certified copy of judgment; (ii) thereafter, consider Ext.P7 with notice to the petitioners and other allottees and provide an opportunity of hearing, within two months; no order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions to complete specific steps in a time-bound manner; no order as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Kumari S.
Rajani

Respondents

The Tahasildar (Land Records), Thiruvananthapuram Taluk
The Taluk Surveyor, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk
The Village Officer, Peroorkada Village
The Senior Superintendent, Survey Directorate
Deputy Director, Department of Survey and Land Records

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Thirumala P.K. Mani

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt A.C. Vidhya (Government Pleader)

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a writ petition (Article 226 of the Constitution) moved by Kumari S. and Rajani challenging corrections in resurvey and revenue records affecting the extent of land allotted to them in Peroorkada Village. The petition traces the history of ownership: their father held 20 cents under old Survey No. 2462/118-1-2; settlement deeds in 1992 (Ext.P1 and Ext.P2) allotted 5 cents each to the wife Sarojini and daughters, including Rajani. Subsequent mutations and tax remittances followed, but during resurvey the total extent was reduced from 20 cents to 16 cents, with Pattayam T-6616 (Re.Sy. 377/16) reflecting the changed measurements. The petition seeks measurement of the entire 20 cents as per Ext.P1 and Ext.P2, demarcation of the properties, and corrections in the resurvey and revenue records. Ext.P3, P3(a), P3(b) contain representations for rectification. The petition alleges delay in processing Ext.P7 (dated 19.10.2020), which was forwarded to the Tahsildar (Land Records), who in turn sought documents to prove possession and title. The respondents contend Ext.P7 is pending and call for a report from the Head Surveyor. The court directed expeditious action: obtain the Head Surveyor’s report within two weeks and decide Ext.P7 after hearing within two months, while observing that orders must be consistent with law; no costs awarded.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

No mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to act contrary to law (State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra)
Generally no Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to statutory provisions or to direct an authority to act in contravention of the law (Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that their 20 cents of land in old Survey No.2469/118-1-2, covered by Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 settlement deeds, should be measured and demarcated as per the original settlement, and that rectifications be effected in the resurvey records to reflect the true extent and boundaries. They state Ext.P7 (19.10.2020) seeks correction but has remained pending; they request notice and opportunity of hearing for Ext.P7. They highlight past mutations and tax remittances, and argue that delay in processing has prejudice their title and possession, warranting mandamus to ensure compliance with the settled records and lawful demarcation.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that Ext.P7 has not yet been decided and a report from the Head Surveyor is awaited; they contend that the Tahsildar must obtain the Head Surveyor’s report and that any action must be taken strictly in accordance with law, with due notice and opportunity for hearing, following the statutory framework and legal principles on discretionary remedies and the limits of mandamus.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra	(1996) 9 SCC 309	Positive	Cited to support the principle that mandamus cannot compel government to refrain from enforcing law or to act contrary to law.
Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI	(2011) 10 SCC 259	Positive	Cited to reinforce that generally no court has power to direct an authority to act in contravention of statutory provisions.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Kumari S. v. Tahasildar (Land Records), Thiruvananthapuram Taluk and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST MAGHA,1942** ## **W.P.(C) No.1354 OF 2021(T)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **1 KUMARI S. AGED 53 YEARS D/O.SAROJINI,NELLIVILAVEEDU,ARR SCHOOL ROAD,NELLIVILA,NETTAYOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695013.** - **2 RAJANI, AGED 46 YEARS D/O.SAROJINI,NELLIVILA VEEDU, ARR SCHOOL ROAD, NELLIVILA,NETTAYOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695013.** **BY ADV. SRI.THIRUMALA P.K.MANI** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE TAHASILDAR (LAND RECORDS) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK OFFICE, TALUK OFFICE RD, NEAR EXCISE OFFICER, FORT,EAST FORT,PAZHAVANGADI, ATTAKULANGARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA-695023.** - **2 THE TALUK SURVEYOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK,SURVEY BHAVAN, COTTON HILL RD,COTTON HILL,VAZHUTHACAUD, P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.** - **3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PEROORKADA VILLAGE,NERA CPT,VATTIYOORKAVU,P.O, MARUTHANKUZHI-KACHANI ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695013.** - **4 THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, SURVEY DIRECTORATE,SURVEY BHAVAN,COTTON HILL ROAD,COTTON HILL,VAZHUTHACAUD,.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.** W.P.(C) No.1354 OF 2021(T) 2 **5 DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, OFFICE OF THE SURVEY DIRECTOR VAZHUTHACAUD, P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SMT A.C.VIDHYA - GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.1354 OF 2021(T) 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners' father was the absolute owner in possession of 20 cents of property comprised in old Survey No.2462/118-1-2 in Peroorkada Village, covered by sale deed No.2877/59 of the Sub Registrar Office, Chalai and partition deed No.2799/86 of the Sub Registrar Office, Sasthamangalam. On 24.09.1992, the father of the petitioners executed Ext.P1 settlement deed No.2835/1992/1 of the Sub Registrar Office, Sasthamangalam. By virtue of Ext.P1 settlement deed, the 1[st] petitioner effected mutation of her property and remitted land tax, as evidenced by Ext.P1(a) tax receipt dated 23.11.1995. On 24.09.1992 itself, the father of the petitioner executed Ext.P2 settlement deed No.2836/1992 dated 24.09.1992 of the Sub Registrar Office, Sasthamangalam in favour of his wife Sarojini and other daughters Sarala and Rajani (the 2[nd] petitioner herein) allotting 5 cents each to them in Peroorkada Village. The A schedule property in Ext.P2 allotted to Sarojini is in Sy.No.2469/118-1; B schedule property allotted to Sarala is in Sy.No.2469/118-1; and C schedule property allotted to Rajani is in Sy.No.2469/118-2-3. The 2[nd] petitioner and other allottees under Ext.P2 settlement deed effected mutation of their W.P.(C) No.1354 OF 2021(T) 4 respective properties and remitted land tax. Ext.P2(a) is the tax receipt dated 12.05.1995 in respect of the property covered by Ext.P2. According to the petitioners, when re-survey was conducted, the whole 20 cents of land was included in Pattayam No.T-6616, Re.Sy.No.377/16, Block No.23 and the total extent of property was reduced to 16 cents (6.40 Ares). The 1[st] petitioner submitted Ext.P3 representation dated 24.06.2014, Ext.P3(a) representation dated 10.07.2014 and Ext.P3(b) representation dated 14.08.2014 for separating the properties from the joint pattayam and also to rectify the mistakes in resurvey records. Though the petitioners were issued with separate pattayam, their grievance that in re-survey records, the total extent of 20 cents was reduced to 16 cents was not resolved. The document marked as Exts.P4 to P6 are the tax receipts dated 23.09.2020, 18.11.2020 and 23.09.2020 respectively, whereby petitioners 1 and 2 and Sarojini remitted land tax as per re-survey records. 2. The petitioners submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 19.10.2020 before the respondents to measure out and demarcate 5 cents each of property allotted to them and other allottees under Exts.P1 and P2 settlement deeds and to make W.P.(C) No.1354 OF 2021(T) 5 necessary corrections in re-survey and revenue records. After submission of Ext.P7 representation, the petitioners received Ext.P8 notice dated 29.10.2020 of the 5[th] respondent Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records forwarding that representation to the 1[st] respondent Tahasildar (Land Records). Thereafter, the 1[st] respondent directed the petitioners to produce the documents to prove their respective possession and title over the properties. As per that direction, they submitted all the required documents before the 1[st] respondent. The grievance of the petitioners is the delay in consideration of their request in Ext.P7. 3. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to measure out the entire 20 cents of the property comprised in old Survey No.2469, 2469/118/1-2-3 of Peroorkada Village as per Ext.P1 settlement deed No.2835/1992/I dated 24.09.1992 of Sub Registrar Office, Sasthamangalam executed in favour of the 1[st] petitioner and Ext.P2 settlement deed No.2836/1992 dated 24.09.1992 of Sub Registrar Office, Sasthamangalam and ascertain the boundaries and demarcate the properties of the W.P.(C) No.1354 OF 2021(T) 6 petitioners and to effect necessary correction in Re.Survey and revenue records. 4. On 19.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 6. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that Ext.P7 application dated 19.10.2020, made by the petitioners is now pending consideration before the 1[st] respondent Tahsildar (Land Records), who has already called for a report from the Head Surveyor, which is awaited. On receipt of that report, necessary orders will be passed on Ext.P7 application made by the petitioners. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that consideration of Ext.P7 application may be with notice to the petitioners and after affording them an opportunity of being heard. 8. Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of W.P.(C) No.1354 OF 2021(T) 7 with the following directions; (i) The 1[st] respondent Tahsildar (Land Records) shall take necessary steps to ensure that the report of the Head Surveyor on Ext.P7 application made by the petitioners is obtained within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, if not already received. (ii) Thereafter, the 1[st] respondent shall consider and take an appropriate decision on the request made by the petitioners in Ext.P7 application, with notice to the petitioners and other allottees under Ext.P2 settlement deed, and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a further period of two months. 9. 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. 10. Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this W.P.(C) No.1354 OF 2021(T) 8 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. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN** **JUDGE** MIN W.P.(C) No.1354 OF 2021(T) 9 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.2835/1992/DATED 24.09.1992 OF SASTHAMANGALAM SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER** - **EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 23.11.1995 REMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AS PER EXT.P1** - **EXHIBIT P2** - **TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.2836/1992 DATED 24.09.1992 OF SASTHAMANGALAM SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE ALLOTTING 5 CENTS OF PROPERTY TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 12.05.1999 REMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER AS PER EXT.P2** - **EXHIBIT P3** - **TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.06.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE RESURVEY RECORDS** - **EXHIBIT P3(A)** - **TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.07.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE RESURVEY RECORDS** - **EXHIBIT P3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.08.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE SURVEY RECORDS** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 23.09.2020 REMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER AFTER THE RESURVEY** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 18.11.2020 REMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER AFTER THE RESURVEY** W.P.(C) No.1354 OF 2021(T) 10 |**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT**| |---|---| ||**DATED 23.09.2020 OF SAROJINI REMITTED**| ||**AFTER THE RESURVEY**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION**| ||**DATED 19.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED**| ||**29.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**TRUE PHOTCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED**| ||**06.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST**| ||**RESPONDENT.**|