Johny Paul Thomas Johnson v. the Village Officer and Others

Kerala HC26 Oct 2016WP(C)/10151/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought directions for the respondents to accept land tax and effect mutation in favour of the petitioner, an industrialist who purchased land through a Debt Recovery Tribunal auction. The court directed an additional respondent to consider representations regarding the land development authority's objections.

What did the court decide?

Direction to additional 5th respondent to consider petitioner's representations regarding land assignment within 3 months after opportunity of hearing.

Johny Paul Thomas Johnson Vs the Village Officer and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 10151 of 2010(T)

PETITIONER(S):

JOHNY PAUL THOMAS JOHNSON, PROPRIETOR, BULGAR INDUSTRIES, PLOT NO.42, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, KOCHUVELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL SRI.S.VISHNU

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE OFFICE.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE RECOVERY OFFICER, DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, 8TH FLOOR, KSHB OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI.

¶16

BY G.P.SRI.M.A.ASIF

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

P.V.ASHA J.

¶19

--------------------------------------------

¶20

W.P.(C) No.10151 of 2010

¶21

--------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26^th day of October, 2016

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents to permit him to remit tax in respect of 30 cents of property purchased by him in survey No.2623 in Kadakampally Village. The petitioner submits that he is not being given possession certificate and the respondents are not effecting mutation despite the fact that the property in question was purchased by him in the public auction conducted at the instance of the Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal and the sale was confirmed and the sale deed was registered with the Sub Registrar Office, Thiruvananthapuram as per sale deed No.2808/09 dated 17.08.2009.

¶24

Petitioner submits that he completed his B.Tech Degree and got M/s.Bulgar Industries registered with the District Industries Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. He was proposing to manufacture banana powder, banana flakes etc., in the Plot No.42 of Industrial Estate in Kochuveli, Thiruvananthapuram, covered by Ext.P4 sale deed. But his request for acceptance of tax in respect of the property, was

¶25

W.P.(C) No.10151 of 2010

¶26

¶27

turned down. Petitioner submits that since the sale in his favour in respect of the property in question has already been confirmed, the refusal to effect mutation and the refusal to accept tax from him is illegal. The Village Officer does not have any objection for effecting mutation in favour of petitioner and accepting tax from him in respect of the 30 cents of the property in the Survey No.2620.

¶28

As per Ext.P2 sale proclamation of the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, 20 cents of land in Survey No.2623/68-2 and 30 cents in Sy.No.2623 part aggregating to 50 cents along with a double storied office building and an industrial building and all other improvements in Kadakampally Village in Thiruvananthapuram were auctioned towards the recovery of certificate debt of Rs.1,04,74,473.74/- as on 24.02.2009, fixing the reserve price at Rs.28,00,000/-. Petitioner purchased it in the auction conducted on 20.04.2009 for a sum of Rs.28,10,000/-, as per Ext.P3 order. The Debts Recovery Tribunal confirmed the sale.

¶29

The description of the property is shown in the sale deed as land ad-measuring 20 cents in Plot No.42 in Kochuveli Industrial Estate and comprised in Sy.No.2623/68-2 situated at Kadakampally Village and 30 cents in Plot No.42 in Kochuveli

¶30

W.P.(C) No.10151 of 2010

¶31

¶32

Industrial Estate and comprised in Sy.No.2623 situated at Kadakampally Village.

¶33

Petitioner has also produced the sales certificate as Ext.P4, in support of his claim for effecting mutation. It is also stated that the tax was being received from him on 19.09.2009 and 21.11.2009 as per Exts.P5 and P6. In Ext.P7 report dated 25.01.2010, submitted by the Village Officer to the Taluk Office, Village Officer recommended for effecting mutation in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the properties. As per Ext.P8 the Additional Tahsildar had by letter dated 17.02.2010, called for a detailed report in respect of 30 cents of the property covered by Ext.P7 report. Pursuant to this, the Village Officer submitted Ext.P9 report on 01.03.2010, stating that the said properties along with 20 cents of properties were assigned to the petitioner as per the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and M/s.Bulgar Industries is functioning in the said plot. The Village Officer recommended for proceedings for conformation. Even though petitioner submitted representations thereafter, the respondents have not taken any action.

¶34

The Deputy Tahsildar has filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that 50 cents of land covered by the

¶35

W.P.(C) No.10151 of 2010

¶36

¶37

documents produced by the petitioner were originally allotted in the name of M/s.Kannan Oil Private Limited. Since the said land is situated in the Industrial Development Area, Kochuveli, it is in the ownership of Industries Department. The 20 cents of land was already mutated in favour of one Shri Subramoney, who was the Managing Director of Kannan Oil Private Limited, Kochuveli, Industrial Area and he has been remitting the land tax as per Thandaper No.22935 of Kadakampally Village and the said land is owned by M/s.Kannan Oil Private Limited. Therefore, it is stated that petitioner has to produce documents to show how Kannan Oil got the above said land, prior to the deed executed in his favour. The tax receipt produced were discarded saying that it should reflect the name of Pattadar and not the person who remitted the tax.

¶38

Subsequent to this, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.4597 of 2013, in which the Director of Industries and Commerce, Government Secretary, Department of Industries and Commerce and District Collector were impleaded. Petitioner has also produced representations Exts.P11 to P13 by which he addressed those respondents requesting to effect mutation in respect of 30 cents of land in Sy.No.2623. In Ext.P13 identical reliefs have been sought in all these

¶39

W.P.(C) No.10151 of 2010

¶40

¶41

representations addressed to the additional respondents 4 to 6.

¶42

There is no counter affidavit in respect of the request made in the representations of the petitioner. In view of the fact that petitioner has already approached the additional respondents 4 to 6 requesting for assignment of 30 cents of land covered by Exts.P2 to P4 documents registered in his favour, there will be a direction to the additional 5^th respondent to consider and pass orders on the same, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, in case orders are not passed on those representations.

¶43

With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed

¶44

of.

¶45

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶46

Johny Paul Thomas Johnson v. the Village Officer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Johny Paul Thomas Johnson v. the Village Officer and Others

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

Easwari Amma Vs the Bdo, Harippad & Others

K.Sreebhagya Vs State of Kerala

Christinal Jacob & 2 Others Vs State of Kerala & 5 Others

Chinnamanikkom Vs the Kerala Financial Corporation & Anr.

8.S.JOSEPHKUTTY Vs Managing Director,Kerala Co-Oeperative

Abdul Manaf Vs State of Kerala