High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-04-07Disposed of with directions; no order as to costs.

V. Reghu and V. Rajesh v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C).No.7159 of 2021 (T)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anil K. Narendran
Judgment Date: 2021-04-07
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of by directing the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P5 reply of the 1st petitioner to Ext.P4 and Ext.P11 reply of the 2nd petitioner to Ext.P10 and take an appropriate decision, before proceeding further with Exts.P4 and P10 notices. A decision in this regard shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioners are left open to be raised before the 3rd respondent at an appropriate stage. No order as to costs.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions; no order as to costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

V. Reghu
V. Rajesh

Respondents

State of Kerala
District Collector, Thrissur
Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Sub Division, Thrissur
Thrissur Municipal Corporation

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Anchal C. Vijayan

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. K. Amminikutty – Sr. Government Pleader
• Sri. Santhosh P. Poduval, SC, Thrissur Corporation

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges two notices (Ext.P4 dated 09.03.2021 to the 1st petitioner and Ext.P10 dated 09.03.2021 to the 2nd petitioner) issued by the 3rd respondent, the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Sub Division, Thrissur, under Rule 13A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules, 1958. The petitioners claim ownership and possession of land in Thrissur Village (land details in Sy. Nos. 140, 142, 142/1-2, 143/PT1, 144/3-2, 144/3-3) and seek quashing Exts.P4 and P10 and a declaration that the 3rd respondent has no entitlement to issue such notices without due process. After proceedings, the court heard submissions of the petitioners and respondents and directed the 3rd respondent to consider the replies filed by the petitioners (Exts.P5 and P11) to the notices, and to decide, in accordance with law, whether to proceed with the notices. The court observed that constitutional mandates require adherence to statutory provisions and the rule of law, citing State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra and Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI to emphasize that courts cannot compel actions contrary to law. The petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to take an appropriate decision within one month from certified copy of the judgment, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing. No order as to costs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaRule 13A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules, 1958

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

No mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law
Rule of law

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued for consideration of Exts.P5 and P11 replies with notice to the petitioners and after affording them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, before proceeding further with Exts.P4 and P10 notices. They sought protection against eviction by quashing the notices and asserting that any action must follow due process and statutory provisions.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents’ counsel, led by the Senior Government Pleader, contended that Exts.P4 and P10 notices be considered in light of the Replies (Exts.P5 and P11) and that action in accordance with law should proceed; the opposite view emphasized enforcement under Rule 13A and adherence to statutory provisions, subject to legal procedure.

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 the government to act contrary to law or to refrain from enforcing lawful provisions.
Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI	[(2011) 10 SCC 259]	Positive	Cited to reinforce that courts generally cannot direct acts contrary to statutory provisions and should uphold the rule of law.

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 V. Reghu and V. Rajesh v. State of Kerala 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 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021/17TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **WP(C).No.7159 OF 2021(T)** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**V. REGHU**| |---|---| ||**AGED 61 YEARS**| ||**S/O. P.K. RAMAPANICKER,**| ||**HARISREE, PATTURAIKKAL,**| ||**THRISSUR.**| |**2**|**V. RAJESH**| ||**AGED 57 YEARS**| ||**S/O. V. GOPALAKRISHNA PODUVAL,**| ||**CHANDRAVILLA,**| ||**KEERAMKULAM DESOM,**| ||**CHEMBUKAVU VILLAGE,**| ||**THRISSUR.**| **BY ADV. SRI. ANCHAL C. VIJAYAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,**| ||**GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,**| ||**PIN - 695 001.**| |**2**|**DISTRICT COLLECTOR**| ||**THRISSUR,**| ||**PIN - 680 001.**| |**3**|**THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER**| ||**PWD ROADS SUB DIVISION,**| ||**THRISSUR,**| ||**PIN - 680 001.**| |**4**|**THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION**| ||**MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD,**| ||**THRISSUR,**| ||**PIN - 680 001,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.**| W.P(C).No.7159 OF 2021 2 **SMT. K.AMMINIKUTTY – SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4 - SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(C).No.7159 OF 2021 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The 1[st] petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession of 13.73 cents of land in Sy.Nos.140 and 142 of Thrissur Village and the 2[nd] petitioner along with his wife is the owner in possession of 20.24 Ares of land in Sy.Nos.142/1-2, 143/Pt1, 144/3-2 and 144/3-3 of Thrissur Village. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 notice dated 09.03.2021 issued by the 3[rd] respondent Assistant Executive Engineer to the 1[st] petitioner and also Ext.P10 notice dated 09.03.2021 issued by the 3[rd] respondent to the 2[nd] petitioner. The petitioners have also sought for a declaration that the 3[rd] respondent is not entitled to issue Exts.P4 and P10 notices, by resorting to Rule 13A of the Kerala Land Conservancy Rules, 1958 without issuing any notice or for evicting the petitioners from the land in their possession. 2. On 19.03.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the 4[th] respondent sought time to get instructions. W.P(C).No.7159 OF 2021 4 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4[th] respondent Municipal Corporation. 4. On receipt of Ext.P4 notice dated 09.03.2021 of the 3[rd] respondent, the 1[st] petitioner submitted Ext.P5 reply dated 10.03.2021. Similarly, on receipt of Ext.P10 notice dated 09.03.2021, the 2[nd] petitioner submitted Ext.P11 reply dated 10.03.2021. 5. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the 3[rd] respondent shall consider Ext.P5 reply of the 1[st] petitioner and Ext.P11 reply of the 2[nd] petitioner, before proceeding further with Exts.P4 and P10 notices. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that consideration of Exts.P5 and P11 may be with notice to the petitioners and after affording them a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the 3[rd] respondent Assistant Executive Engineer to W.P(C).No.7159 OF 2021 5 consider Ext.P5 reply of the 1[st] petitioner to Ext.P4 notice and Ext.P11 reply of the 2[nd] petitioner to Ext.P10 notice and take an appropriate decision, before proceeding further with Exts.P4 and P10 notices. A decision in this regard shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioners are left open to be raised before the 3[rd] respondent at appropriate stage. 8. 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. 9. Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this 6 W.P(C).No.7159 OF 2021 judgment, the 3[rd] 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** SPR W.P(C).No.7159 OF 2021 7 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE LAND ALLOTTED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER AS PER THE ALLOTMENT RESOLUTION OF THE AUTHORITY DATED 08.06.1996.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT NO.KL 080 16000631/2020 DATED 11.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRISSUR.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE NO.VTM1/4510/18 DATED 19.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.3607 DATED 09.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION/REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS DATED 12.03.2021.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE LAND ALLOTTED TO SRI.T.R.PRITHIRAJ AS PER THE PRE-CONSTITUTION LAY OUT AGREED BY THE LAND OWNERS AND APPROVED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE VIDE RSOLUTION NO.1 DATED 08.06.1996.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.KL08016000954/2021 DATED 09.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRISSUR IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER AND WIFE - GEETHANJALI RAJESH.** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION, LOCATION CERTIFICATE AND SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRISSUR IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 01.10.2021.** W.P(C).No.7159 OF 2021 8 **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.3502 DATED 09.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION/REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10.03.2021.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.**