Allowed

Marshall v. the Tahsildar, Palakkad

Kerala HC13 Feb 2015WP(C)/718/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Village Officer to accept the petitioner's land tax despite claims of ceiling cases without prior notice and ordered the issuance of a possession certificate within two weeks, noting this would not bar further proceedings if ceiling issues are substantiated.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Village Officer to accept tendered land tax and issue a possession certificate to the petitioner within two weeks.

Marshall Vs the Tahsildar, Palakkad — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/24TH MAGHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 718 of 2015 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MARSHALL, S/O. SELVARAJAN, AGED 37 YEARS, KONGAMPARA, KOZHIPPARA P.O., PALAKKAD.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE TAHASILDAR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 001.

¶11

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUDUSSERI EAST VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN -678 007.

¶12

3. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶13

BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MUHAMMED SHAFI.M

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

WP(C).No. 718 of 2015 (L)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXHIBIT-P1-	A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NUMBER 4787/2014 OF THE SRO, PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT-P2-	A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 19/08/2014 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF MOHAMMED ALI.
EXHIBIT-P3-	A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 18/09/2014 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P4-	A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NUMBER 4786/2014 OF THE SRO, PALAKKAD.
EXHIBIT-P5-	A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 19/08/2014 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF JOHN BOSCO.
EXHIBIT-P6-	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 18/09/2014 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P7-	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/12/2014 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P8-	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 18/06/2009 IN W.P(C) 26227/2008.
EXHIBIT-P9-	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/11/2010 IN W.P(C) 21093/2010 OF THIS HONBLE COURT.
EXHIBIT-P10-	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/04/2013 IN W.P(C) 3820/2013 OF THIS HONBLE COURT.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

mbr/

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶25

W.P(C). No. 718 of 2015

¶26

Dated this the 13^th day of February, 2015

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶29

prayers:

¶30

“i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to collect basic tax from the petitioner in respect of 3.45 ACRES of land in ReSy.No.42/5, 56/5, 52/14,52/9, 52/8, 49/6 and 49/5 in Resurvey Block No.32 of Pudusseri East Village in Palakkad Taluk, belonging to him, covered by Exts.P1 and P4 and issue him a possession certificate.

¶31

ii) issue such other writ, order or directions which are deemed fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

¶32

The case of the petitioner is that the property concerned

¶33

herein having an extent of 3.45 ACRES of land in Re-Sy.No.42/5, 56/5, 52/14,52/9, 52/8, 49/6 and 49/5 in Resurvey Block No.32 of Pudusseri East Village in Palakkad Taluk exclusively belongs to the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is enjoying the same also remitting basic tax after effecting mutation under

¶34

the Transfer of Registry Rules. The case of the petitioner is that

¶35

WP(c). No.718 of 2015

¶36

¶37

quite recently, the respondents refused to accept the tax in respect of the concerned property stating that there is some ceiling cases against the said property. It is submitted that absolutely no notice has been served to the petitioner as to the involvement of the property in ceiling case.

¶38

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶39

There is absolutely no justification for refusing to accept the land tax; more so since mutation has already been effected and the concerned respondent had accepted the tax from the petitioner. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the second respondent/Village Officer to accept the land tax in respect of the property, as and when the same is tendered. However, it is made clear that this will not bar the way of the respondents in proceeding with further steps against the property, if at all the property concerned is a subject matter of any ceiling case. There is further direction to the second respondent/Village officer to issue possession certificate to the petitioner, after verifying the relevant documents, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy

¶40

WP(c). No.718 of 2015

¶41

¶42

of the judgment.

¶43

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶44

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along

¶45

with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent/Village Officer for further steps.

¶46

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶47

Marshall v. the Tahsildar, Palakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marshall v. the Tahsildar, Palakkad

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

Sameer Rep. by His Power of Attorney Holder Moideen Vs District Collector, Malappuram

Fakrudheen.K Vs the District Collector

Abdul Salim Vs the District Collector, Palakkad

M/S.Rmd Realtors Private Limited Vs Mr.M.G.Rajamanikkom

Ansa Raj Vs the Principal

Chandran M. Vs the District Registrar