The High Court disposed of a writ appeal filed by State officers against an order directing respondents to pay land tax. The Court observed that tax receipt is provisional and does not confer title, leaving the Government free to cancel assignments if illegal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/21ST MAGHA, 1937
WA.No. 119 of 2011 IN WP(C).11303/2008
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 11303/2008 DATED 05-10-2010
APPELLANTS :
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.P.I. DAVIS.
RESPONDENTS :
R1 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No. 119 of 2011 IN WP(C).11303/2008
APPENDIX
APPELANTS' EXHIBITS :
ANNEXURE A1 : TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) No.463/88/RD DATED 27.05.1988. ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) nO.362/90/RD DATED 18.05.1990.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J. & A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.
W.A. No. 119 OF 2011
JUDGMENT
Shaffique, J.
The appeal is filed by the respondents in W.P.(C) No.11303 of 2008 challenging the judgment dated 05.10.2010 by which the learned Single Judge had directed the respondents to receive the land tax for the property claimed by the petitioners.
Peter. The averments in the writ petition disclose that the order of assignment, Ext.P1 dated 27.12.1977 was issued by the Government by which sanction was accorded for assignment of land comprised in Survey No.576/1 of Sasthamcotta Village in favour of Sri.P.Chellappan Pillai and 16 others on the puramboke land. The contention raised by the petitioners is that pursuant to Ext.P1, Ext.P2 Patta has been issued in favour of their predecessor, based on which he was paying tax for the property. There had been certain disputes with the Travancore Devaswom Board with regard to the right
WA. No. 119 of 2011
-:2:-
and possession of the property which ultimately was decided in their favour as per judgment in A.S. No.177 of 1985. Though land tax was paid by the petitioners' predecessor, after his death when attempts were made to pay tax, the same was not received. Accordingly, as per the direction issued by this Court the matter was considered by the District Collector which resulted in Ext.P12 order dated 15.12.2007. The District Collector after considering the matter in detail observed that on examination of the records and verification of the report of the Tahsildar, land tax cannot be received as the property comprised in old survey No.576/1(RS No.127/1) in Block No.13 is part of Government land on the banks of backwaters on which the petitioners do not have possession over the property, the property does not have clear boundaries and no improvements were made. Hence the petitioners' request cannot be considered.
2nd respondents inter alia stating that the title and possession over the land is not well established as the petitioners are not in
WA. No. 119 of 2011
-:3:-
occupation of the land and property does not have proper boundaries. It is further stated that more verification is required to be done with regard to the genuineness of the Patta. That apart respondent Government has every right to cancel the Patta once it is found to be illegal. Hence Ext.P12 order has been issued.
WA. No. 119 of 2011
-:4:-
of the property, there was no reason for the learned Single Judge to have directed receipt of land tax. It is argued that though Ext.P1 order has been issued and there is doubt regarding the genuineness of Ext.P2, it is always open for the Governmental authorities to cancel the assignment on account of the fact that the property is lying as kayal puramboke. That apart, on re-survey the property is clearly described as Government land and therefore the question of receipt of land tax does not arise.
and having perused the records, we find that the learned Single Judge had clearly indicated that receipt of land tax shall not amount to acceptance of title or possession of the property by the petitioners. The main apprehension expressed on behalf of the appellants is with regard to their right to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
judgment which precludes the right of the Government or its authorities to cancel the Patta or assignment order if it was
WA. No. 119 of 2011
-:5:-
wrongly issued or there is any illegality in granting the assignment. Mere receipt of land tax can only be treated as a provisional arrangement subject to the right of the Government to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
In the said circumstances we do not think that any further direction is required to be passed in this appeal. We only observe that the receipt of land tax shall be treated as provisional and Government can take appropriate action in accordance with law. The Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- Ashok Bhushan, Chief Justice.
Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
ttb/10/02
3 issues framed by the court
Whether mere receipt of land tax amounts to acceptance of title or possession by petitioners challenging the High Court order.
Whether the direction to pay land tax precludes the Government from cancelling an assignment order if found illegal.
Whether any further direction is required in an appeal challenging the receipt of land tax order.
The District Collector, Kollam
The Tahsildar, Kunnathur Taluk, Sasthamcotta
The Village Officer, Sasthamcotta
The Sub Inspector of Police, Sasthamcotta
Joseph Peter
Thomas Peter
Ashok Bhushan
A.M. Shaqiffe
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
