Disposed

G.Gopakumar v. the District Collector

Kerala HC28 Oct 2013WP(C)/14308/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the pendency of civil suits challenging a property sale does not prevent the revenue department from accepting land tax. It directed the Village Officer to accept the tax tendered by the successful purchaser while the civil disputes remain pending.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent to accept land tax as and when tendered by the petitioner for the property in question, subject to the verdict in the pending civil suits.

G.Gopakumar Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/6TH KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 14308 of 2013 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

G.GOPAKUMAR,AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, PROPRIETOR, G4 PROPERTY, GAYATRI MADOM, KILIROOR KARA, THIRUVARPU, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

¶11

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

3. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM.

¶13

4. VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKODITHANAM, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM.

¶14

5. KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, THEKKEPARAMBIL FROM DHANUSHKODI, THRIKKODITHANAM, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM.

¶15

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. LILLY K.T. R5 BY ADV. SRI.MANSOOR.B.H.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

WP(C).No. 14308 of 2013 (K)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1- TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2491 DATED 11.7.2007 OF THE SRO, THENGANA.

¶22

P2- TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC LAND TAX RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE YEAR 2011-12 DATED 16.4.2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶23

P3- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 23.1.2012.

¶24

P4- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.12.2012 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶25

P5- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7.1.2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

P6- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.3.2003 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶27

P7- TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.583/2010 OF THE SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM.

¶28

P8- TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.183/2012 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶29

P9- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.1337/2012 IN OS NO.183/2012 OF THE SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM.

¶30

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(C). No. 14308 of 2013

¶38

-------------------------------------------Dated this the 28^th day of October, 2013

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The petitioner purchased the property covered by Ext.P1 Sale Deed executed before the SRO, Thengana on 11.07.2007 and ever since then, he is enjoying the same with absolute ownership, exclusive possession and clear and marketable title, also remitting the basic tax as borne by Ext.P2. There arose a dispute between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent, when the petitioner approached the Sub Court, Kottayam by filing O.S.No. 583/2010 (Ext.P7), seeking for a decree of injunction against the 5^th respondent. It is stated that, the 5^th respondent subsequently filed O.S.No. 183/2012 (Ext.P8) before the very same Court for setting aside the sale, wherein, Ext.P9 interim order of injunction has been passed to the effect that, no waste shall be committed in the plaint schedule property. Referring to the pendency of above suit, land tax is not being accepted by the 4^th respondent, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.

¶41

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent.

¶42

W.P.C. No. 14308 of 2013

¶43

-2-

¶44

In view of the undisputed fact that the property came to the hands of the petitioner by virute of Ext.P1 Sale Deed and that mutation of the property was effected in the Revenue records and further that tax was being collected as borne by Ext.P2, pendency of Ext.P7 and P8 suits before the concerned Civil Court cannot be a bar in accepting the tax from the petitioner, in respect of the property in question, for the subsequent years.

¶45

In the said circumstance, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 4^th respondent to accept the tax as and when the same is tendered by the petitioner as and when it is due, in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1, which of course shall be subject to the verdict to be passed by the Civil Court where Exts.P7 and P8 suits are pending.

¶46

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 4^th respondent for further steps.

¶47

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶48

kp/-

G.Gopakumar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Gopakumar v. the District Collector

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

M.v.Saleem Vs the District Collector

Radha Vs the Village Officer

J. Anandan Vs State of Kerala

M/S.S.N.Ricemill and Others Vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board & a

Trosi Jayan Vs Board of Control for Prphanages

Anuraj G.R. Vs Central Boad of Secondary Education