In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Chhabil Das

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1941 WP(C).No. 9595 of 2019 PETITIONER/S: GOPALAKRISHNANAGED 46 YEARSS/O. NANU, ATTICHIRAVEEDU, VELIYANADU P.O., KUTTANAD,ALAPPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.P.SHANES METHAR SRI MANU RAJ K.J, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 9595 of 2019 2 JUDGMENT The petitioner's minor son, Gokul G. Krishna is stated tobe the owner of a property having an extent of 80.94 sq.metres covered by Ext.P1 sale deed bearing No. 2705/2016 ofSub-Registrar Office, Kuttanad. The petitioner was issued withExt.P7 order dated 15.01.2019 of the second respondentDistrict Collector, whereby he has been directed to restore thenature of the land and that order is one issued by the saidrespondent invoking his powers under Section 13 of theKerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P7 order, the petitioner has movedExt.P8 revision petition before the first respondent, underSection 28 of the said Act. Now the petitioner is before thisCourt in this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quashExt.P7 order dated 15.01.2019 of the second respondent andissue a writ of mandamus commanding the 1[st] respondent totake up, consider and pass orders in Ext.P8 after affording thepetitioner an opportunity of being heard, within a time limit tobe fixed by this Court, and a further direction to therespondents to keep in abeyance all further proceedingspursuant to Ext.P7 for the said period. 2.On 01.04.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed toget instructions as to whether Ext.P8 revision petition filed bythe petitioner is pending consideration before the firstrespondent. 3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner andalso the learned Government Pleader appearing for therespondents. 4. In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Das Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603], the Apex Court held that non-entertainment of a writ petition under Article 226 of theConstitution of India when an efficacious alternative remedy isavailable is a rule and self imposed limitation. It is essentially arule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule oflaw. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court togrant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,despite the existence of alternative remedy. However, HighCourt must not interfere if there is an adequate efficaciousalternative remedy available to the petitioner and he hasapproached the High Court without availing the same, unlesshe has made out an exceptional case warranting suchinterference or there exists sufficient ground to invoke theextraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. WP(C).No. 9595 of 2019 4 5.Ext.P7 order, which is under challenge in this writpetition is revisable before the first respondent in view of theprovisions under Section 28 of the Kerala Conservation ofPaddy Land and Wet Land Act. In view of the statutoryremedy available under Section 28 of the Kerala Conservationof Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, the petitioner cannot invokethe writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India seeking an order to quash Ext.P7. 6. The learned Government Pleader would submit thatExt.P8 revision petition filed by the petitioner against Ext.P7order of the second respondent District Collector is nowpending consideration before the first respondent. 7.Since Ext.P8 revision petition filed by the petitioneris pending consideration before the first respondent, it is forthe petitioner to pursue Ext.P8 revision. 6. The learned Government Pleader would submit thatExt.P8 revision petition filed by the petitioner against Ext.P7order of the second respondent District Collector is nowpending consideration before the first respondent. 7.Since Ext.P8 revision petition filed by the petitioneris pending consideration before the first respondent, it is forthe petitioner to pursue Ext.P8 revision. 8.Having considered the submissions made by thelearned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed ofby directing the first respondent to consider and passappropriate orders on Ext.P8 revision petition filed by thepetitioner against Ext.P7 order, with notice to the petitionerand after affording him an opportunity of being heard. Having considered the submissions made by the WP(C).No. 9595 of 2019 5 Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed, asexpeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of twomonths from the date of receipt of a certified copy of thisjudgment. Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE DCS APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2705 OF 2016EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 21.11.2017EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 21.11.2017 EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFCATE OF DISABILITY ISSUED FROM T.D. MEDICAL COLLEGE,ALAPPUZHAISSUED FROM T.D. MEDICAL COLLEGE,ALAPPUZHA EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARDS PERSONS WITH DISABILITY ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, ALAPPUZHAWITH DISABILITY ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.C10-41340/17 DATED 08.11.2017 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENTDATED 08.11.2017 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENTDATED 21.11.2017BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENTDATED 21.11.2017 EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C10-41340/17 DATED 15.01.2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENTDATED 15.01.2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION TOGETHERPOSTAL RECEIPT DATED 20.03.2019POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 20.03.2019