Disposed

Kadeeja v. the Tahsildar

Kerala HC24 Mar 2015WP(C)/4364/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, whose earlier original petition was disposed of in her favor regarding notices under Enemy Property Act, sought writ for tax clearance. Court found petitioner had not approached concerned respondent or filed pending proceedings. Ordered liberty to file application with first respondent within two weeks for tax redressal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed liberty to file necessary application before first respondent within two weeks for redressal of grievances to satisfy tax and enjoy property.

Kadeeja Vs the Tahsildar — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/3RD CHAITHRA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 4364 of 2015 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KADEEJA, W/O LATE.ABDUL KAREEM, AGED 31 YEARS, KARIPPATHODIL HOUSE, WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS SMT.P.M.SHAHIDA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 330.

¶11

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER WANDOOR VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT -679 328.

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶13

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 676 505

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY (SR) GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C.VINCENT

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

vmr.

¶17

WP(C).No. 4364 of 2015 (U)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13-01-2012 IN OP.NO.10656/2003.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

vmr.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶26

W.P.(C) No.4364 of 2015

¶27

Dated this the 24^th day of March, 2015

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner herein joining hands with her daughter by

¶30

name 'Seema', had approached this Court earlier by way of O.P.

¶31

No.10656 of 2003 seeking for the following reliefs:

¶32

“i. call for the records leading to the case and issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exts.P4, P6 and P7 notices, as the same are illegal.

¶33

ii. declare that the land and building (0.02 Ares [2 cents]) situated in R.S. No.137/3 of Wandoor Village exclusively belong to the petitioners and other sharers.

¶34

iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents not to proceed against the properties owned and enjoyed by the petitioners under the provisions of Enemy Property Act, 1968.

¶35

iv. stay the operation of Exts.P4,P6 and P7 notices issued by the second and third respondents, till the disposal of this original petition.”

¶36

The petitioners therein were aggrieved of the action

¶37

taken by the respondents in proceeding against the properties

¶38

W.P.(C) No.4364 of 2015

¶39

¶40

concerned under the provisions of the Enemy Property Act, 1968 in spite of the fact that the petitioners were Indian citizens. The matter was considered and finalised as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 13.01.2012, whereby the impugned notices were set aside and the prayers raised in the O.P. were allowed. The matter has become final. In spite of the factual position as above, the attempt made by the petitioner to satisfy the tax in terms of Kerala Land Tax Act is not acceded to and since tax is refused to be accepted, the petitioner finds it difficult to enjoy the property in an effective manner. This made the petitioner to approach this Court again by filing this writ petition.

¶41

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶42

It is stated that, the petitioner has not approached the concerned respondent at any point of time, nor any proceeding is pending consideration.

¶43

In the above circumstances, the petitioner is set at liberty to file necessary application before the first respondent for reddressal of the grievances, if any, and if any such petition is filed within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders

¶44

W.P.(C) No.4364 of 2015

¶45

¶46

shall be passed, so as to enable the petitioner to satisfy the tax

¶47

in respect of the property concerned and to enjoy the property accordingly.

¶48

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, before the first respondent, for further steps.

¶49

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶52

Kadeeja v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadeeja v. the Tahsildar

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

K.Dhushyanthan Vs Saju.D

M.P.Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Subhash K.S. Vs the District Collector, Thrissur

Abdul Ashraf Vs Union of India

Gopinathan Nair Vs the State of Kerala

P.a.Jose Vs State of Kerala