Disposed

V.v.Joseph and Another v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Kerala HC18 Oct 2011WP(C)/16163/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Predicate ruling on a writ petition regarding an application under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Court directed the Taluk Land Board to consider the application once the necessary rules are framed, noting that no rules have been framed so far.

What did the court decide?

Directing the fourth respondent to pass orders on Ext.P5 as and when the rules under Section 7E of the Act are framed.

V.v.Joseph and Another Vs State of Kerala & Ors. — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 16163 of 2010(U)

¶6

----------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-------------------------

¶9

1. V.C. JOSEPH, VELAMKUNNEL HOUSE, PALPATTA, KADAMPAZHIPURAM VILLAGE, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

2. THRESSIAMMA, W/O.V.C. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT -DO-

¶11

*ADDL.P3 TO P5 IMPLEADED

¶12

*P3: V.J.CYRIAC, VELAMKUNNEL HOUSE, UMMANAZHY.P.O., PULAPPATTA VIA, PALAKKAD.

¶13

*P4: V.J.GEORGE, RESIDING -DO-

¶14

*P5: DAISY, W/O.JENSON, R/20,KUMARANKADAN, EDAYARPALAYAM, KUNIYAMMUTHUR, COIMBATORE.

¶15

*ADDL.PETITIONERS 3 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 20/7/11 IN IA 11531/2011.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶17

RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

--------------------------

¶19

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶20

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD.

¶21

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAMPOZAHIPURAM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD.

¶22

4. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, OTTAPPALAM, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶23

5. THE LAND TRIBUNAL,PALAKKAD.

¶24

R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SANGEETHA

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

sts

¶27

WP(C)NO.16163/2010

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶30

P1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED

¶31

P2 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD DATED 25/11/1975.

¶32

P3 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF BASIC TAX IN RESPECT OF LAND COVERED BY EXT.P1 FOR THE PERIOD OF 1996-97.

¶33

P4 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN WP(C)NO.16943/04 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶34

P5 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.

¶35

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶40

W.P.(C).16163/2010

¶41

Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2011

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

The writ petition was filed mainly for a direction to consider Ext.P5, an application made by the petitioners under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005.

¶44

In paragraph 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the fourth respondent, it has been stated thus:-

¶45

“The petitioner and his wife purchased 12.29 acres of lands in Survey 41/9A, 41/9B, 40/A, 41/A, 41/B, 41/C and 41/6 of Kadampazhippuram Village. The petitioner claims that he and his wife purchased the property from the portion of land which was permitted to be retained by the declarant from 1998 onwards the tax was not accepted because that the property purchased by him and his wife covers excess land to be surrendered by the family of the above mentioned declarant. All the excess lands transactions effected after 15.09.1963 are invalid. Hence the basic tax cannot be collected from him. As per the judgment of the Honourable Court in W.P.(C). 16943/04, directs that the petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of Act 21/06 (7E Amendment

¶46

W.P.(C).16163/10

¶47

¶48

Act.). Even though the act 21/06 ie 7E came, the related rules has not been framed so far. Only after the framing of the rules, the claims of the petitioner can be considered by this Taluk Land Board.

¶49

Though the act came, the related rules has not been framed by the Government so far. When the rules are framed, the claims of the petitioner can be considered by this Taluk Land Board. Since the commencement of this act, the Rules related of Sec.7E are not framed by the Government. In these circumstances the order of the Taluk Land Board is still in force.”

¶50

In the light of the above averments and taking note of the pendency of Ext.P5 application, the writ petition is disposed of directing the fourth respondent to pass orders on Ext.P5 as and when rules are framed under Section 7E of the Act.

¶51

Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the fourth respondent for compliance.

¶52

ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge

¶53

mrcs

V.v.Joseph and Another v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.v.Joseph and Another v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nisha Vs the Kerala State Legal Servicesauthority

Lissyamma. L Vs State of Kerala

Mannam Ayurveda Co-Operative Medical Vs Admission Supervisory Committee

Ratheesh Kumar.K.R. Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam

Moideenkutty Hajee Vs Director General, Archaeological Survey

Parvathy Vs State of Kerala