Allowed

Hazeena v. Tahsildar

Kerala HC5 Jul 2010WP(C)/16491/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that a Village Officer cannot refuse to accept land tax from the owner of mortgaged property as the mortgage does not affect revenue collection. The State loses revenue if tax is not collected, and the law imposes no prohibition on tax payment by the land holder despite an existing mortgage. The writ petition was allowed, directing the Village Officer to accept the tax and allow iss

What did the court decide?

Directions to the 2nd Respondent to allow the petitioner to pay land tax and endorse the mortgage status on the tax receipt and any possession certificate issued.

Hazeena Vs Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2010 / 14TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 16491 of 2009(F)

PETITIONER(S):

HAZEENA, W/O.HAMSA, CHERATTUTHODI HOUSE, KARUVAMBARAM P.O., MANJERI.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE

¶11

SRI.J.ABHILASH

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM.

¶14

VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTHUTHALA VILLAGE, PATTAMBI P.O.

¶15

PATTAMBI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., MUTHUTHALA BRANCH, PATTAMBI P.O.

¶16

GOVINDAN, VARIKKAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, MUTHUTHALA AMSOM, PATTAMBI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶17

ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY FOR R3 SMT.N.SANTHA FOR R3 SRI.S.A.ANAND FOR R3

¶18

SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO FOR R3

¶19

SRI.RAMESH. C.R. FOR R3

¶20

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.K.RAMESH

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P.(C).No. 16491/2009.

¶23

			APPENDIX
PETIT	IONER(S)	'EX	HIBITS
P1.	COPY OF	THE	SALE DEED.
P2.	COPY OF	THE	SALE DEED DTD.14.7.06.
P3.	COPY OF	THE	SALE DEED DTD.22.7.05.
P4.	COPY OF	THE	CERTIFICATE FROM LAND TRIBUNAL, PATTAMBI.
P5.	COPY OF	THE	APPLICATION DTD.28.1.2009.
P6.	COPY OF	THE	ORDER DTD.7.2.2009.
P7.	COPY OF	THE	REQUEST DTD.28.4.2009 BEFORE R1.
P8. sdk+	COPY OF	THE	MORTGAGED DEED.

///True copy///

P.A. to Judge

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

==================

W.P.(C).No. 16491 of 2009

¶29

==================

¶30

Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2010

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The 4^th respondent obtained 44 cents of land by Ext.P4 certificate

¶33

of purchase issued under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, by the Pattambi Land Tribunal-I. Out of those 44 cents, the 4^th respondent settled 10 cents in favour of his son Pramod. Then by subsequent transactions, the husband of the petitioner became the owner in possession of the said 10 cents. The petitioner's husband executed Ext.P1 sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Thus the petitioner became the owner of 10 cents of property in survey No.3/12 of Muthuthala Village. According to the petitioner, after purchase by the petitioner's husband and even prior that, land tax was being accepted from the land holder. But when the petitioner approached the 2^nd respondent for paying tax, the 2^nd respondent refused to accept tax on the ground that the property has been mortgaged to the 3^rd respondent-Pattambi Service Co-operative Bank. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs;

¶34

“(a) To call for the records leading to this case and peruse the same.

¶35

(B) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing respondent No.2 to accept the land tax belongs to the petitioners property situated in Sy.No.3/12 of Muthuthala Village and to issue a site plan and possession certificate.

¶36

(C) Issue a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P7 and to conduct an enquiry and to direct the 1^st respondent to accept the

¶37

¶38

w.p.c.16491/09

¶39

tax which is to be paid by the petitioner and direct the 2^nd respondent to issue possession certificate.”

¶40

The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner's

¶41

husband purchased this land after making all reasonable enquiries in respect of the encumbrances in the property and it is after satisfying himself that there was no encumbrance in the property that the petitioner's husband purchased the property. She would further submit that even otherwise the 2^nd respondent cannot refuse to accept the tax on the ground that that there is a mortgage in respect of the property in favour of the 3^rd respondent. According to her, mortgage as such does not affect the ownership of the property and insofar as only the landholder can pay tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act, if the petitioner does not pay land tax in respect of the property, the State will not get revenue in respect of the property. As such, by the action of the 2^nd respondent, the State is the loser. Therefore, the 2^nd respondent cannot refuse to accept land tax in respect of the property, is the contention raised.

¶42

The 3^rd respondent would contend that although Ext.P4 mentions 44 cents, the 4^th respondent possessed only 39 cents and that is why the 4^th respondent executed a sale deed in respect of only 39 cents. They would, therefore, submit that the 10 cents which is in the possession of the petitioner are also included in the 39 cents. They would further submit that when the mortgage is subsisting, the

¶43

¶44

w.p.c.16491/09

¶45

petitioner is not entitled to pay land tax in respect of the property.

¶46

The learned Government Pleader would contend that in

¶47

view of the the mortgage, the 2^nd respondent cannot accept land tax in respect of the property.

¶48

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶49

None of the parties have been able to point out to me any provision of law, which prohibits acceptance of tax in respect of a property when the property is under a mortgage to a creditor by either the owner of the property or a former owner of the property. It is settled law that the mortgage runs with the land and transfer of ownership after the creation of the mortgage does not affect the validity of the mortgage itself. If a prospective purchaser is willing to purchase the property with the mortgage, there is no prohibition for the owner to sell the property subject of course to the mortgage. Such sale does not in any way affect the rights of the mortgagee for enforcing the mortgage and he can at any time enforce the mortgage in accordance with the provisions of the law applicable. If that be so, the fact that a property is the subject matter of a mortgage does not empower the Village Officer to refuse to accept land tax. Land tax is revenue to the State. The person liable to pay tax is the land holder as defined under the Kerala Land Tax Act. Only the land holder can pay tax and not anybodyelse. Tax has also to be paid every year before the

¶50

w.p.c.16491/09 4

¶51

date fixed as per the Act. If the land holder does not pay tax or the Village Officer refuses to accept tax from the land holders, the loser will be the State exchequer. There is no reason why the State should lose or postpone receipt of land tax simply because a land is subject to a mortgage. In fact it is the duty of the Village Officer to see that revenue due to the State in respect of the land under his jurisdiction is properly collected and credited to the State exchequer. Therefore, I do not think that the Village Officer can validly refuse to accept tax in respect of a property simply because the land is subject matter of a mortgage. As such, I am satisfied that the 2^nd respondent was not correct in refusing to accept tax in respect of the property in question from the petitioner. Accordingly, there would be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to allow the petitioner to pay tax in respect of the property in question. However, it would be open to respondents 1 or 2 to endorse in the tax receipt issued to the petitioner that the land is subject to a mortgage in favour of the 3^rd respondent. They can do so in the possession certificate also, if any, issued in respect of the said property.

¶52

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

sdk+

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

///True copy///

P.A. to Judge

w.p.c.16491/09 5

Hazeena v. Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hazeena v. Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Soman & Ors. Vs T.P. Senkumar, Md, Ksrtc

P.Sivasankara Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Soumya Das J.C. Vs the Controller of Examinations

Kerala State Civil Supplies Corpn. Vs Shri. R.a.C.Bhatt & Others

N.J.Susamma Vs the Manager, St.Michael'S College

Dr.Selin Abraham Vs the Director General of Health Services