Disposed

George Mathew v. District Collector

Kerala HC24 Oct 2013WP(C)/20418/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition filed by George Mathew regarding the remittance of basic land tax and verification of property records in Chinnakkanal village by recording the respondents' statement and invoking order striking out. This judgment does not appear to involve substantive adjudication but rather an administrative closure based on respondent's submission that the fi

What did the court decide?

The matter was disposed of after recording the respondents' statement that field verification was being conducted and a decision would be conveyed; no specific relief was granted in this order.

George Mathew Vs 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

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/2ND KARTHIKA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 20418 of 2013 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

GEORGE MATHEW, S/O.M.MATHEW, AGED 52 YEARS, M-10/17, VADASSERIL CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KALAMASSERY, KOCHI-682022 NOW RESIDING AT 16, STERLING ROAD, 2ND CROSS STREET NUNGAMBAKKOM, CHENNAI-600 034.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH

¶9

RESPONDENTS :

¶10

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, IDUKKI-685 618.

¶11

2. TAHZILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI-685 554.

¶12

3. VILLAGE OFFICER,

¶13

CHINNAKKANAL VILLAGE, IDUKKI-685 618.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.T. LILLY

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

...2/-

¶18

WP(C).No. 20418 of 2013 (B)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE TITLE DEED BEARING NUMBER 3482/2000 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, RAJAKUMARI.

¶22

EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH OF THE EXTENT OF PROPERTIES COVERED BY THE SAID TITLE DEED.

¶23

EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 11/6/2012 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶29

¶30

W.P.(c) No.20418 OF 2013

¶31

¶32

Dated this the 24^th day of October, 2013

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶35

prayers :

¶36

“ (i) Call for the entire records pertaining to the facts stated in the writ petition.

¶37

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus, any other Order, writ or direction, directing the respondents herein to accept basic land tax over the properties under ownership of the petitioner within the area of 3^rd respondent's village, including Ext.P1 herein, immediately.

¶38

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus, any other Order, writ or direction, directing the respondents herein especially the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 request, expeditiously and within a time frame manner.

¶39

(iv) Such other reliefs that this Honourable Court may be deemed fit and proper to grant in the interest of justice.

¶40

(v) Award costs of the proceedings.”

¶41

W.P.(C)No.20418/2013 2

¶42

With regard to the relief sought for by the petitioner, a statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent, wherein it is contended that during 2007-08, wide spread irregularities were noticed in the village and revenue records of Chinnakkanal Village, where the property of the petitioner is situated and that a detailed verification was being caused to be conducted requiring the parties concerned to produce the relevant documents for confirming the genuineness. It is stated in paragraph 3 of the statement that the petitioner has already produced all the documents; that the steps for verification have been completed and that the only thing remaining is to conduct a field verification by the Taluk Surveyor. The course and proceedings being intended to be pursued in respect of the petitioner are discernible from paragraph 4, which is reproduced below for convenience of reference :

¶43

“ It is submitted that the Taluk Surveyor was given strict direction to complete the field inspection and submit report at the earliest. It is submitted that a proper decision will be conveyed to the petitioner within 45 days in this matter. However, the matters narrated

¶44

W.P.(C)No.20418/2013 3

¶45

by the petitioner with regard to the properties other than those comprised in Sy.Nos.582 and 583 are not known to this respondent. Indeed, to the best of this respondent's knowledge no application has been received so far in this office in relation to remittance of land tax of properties comprised in Re.Sy.Nos. 139/6 and 139/3 of Chinnakkanal village.”

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the stand taken by the respondents, particularly as given in paragraph 4 of the statement, the writ petition can be closed, so as to have the matter finalised accordingly.

¶47

The submission is recorded and the matter is disposed of.

¶48

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶49

sv.

¶50

W.P.(C)No.20418/2013 4

George Mathew v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Mathew v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kohinoor Saleem Vs Cbse, Chennai

S.Anil Ganesh Vs the Village Officer, Muttathara

K.G.Sreenivasan Vs the State of Kerala

Santhosh B.B. Vs State of Kerala

K.R.R.Infra Projects (Pvt). Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

Azeemuddin Vs Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi