Dismissed

M.T.P. Naseema v. Zonal Officer

Kerala HC16 Nov 2016WP(C)/10601/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that the petitioner cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to enforce private rights regarding building tax payment where two co-shares retain their title. The court directed the petitioner to approach the civil forum or obtain consent of the legal heirs with a certificate.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to prosecute after satisfying the condition of obtaining a legal heirship certificate or consent.

M.T.P. Naseema Vs Zonal Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/25TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 10601 of 2016 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M.T.P. NASEEMA KOYANTE VALAPPIL HOUSE, KUTTIKAKAM,EDAKKAD PO. KANNUR DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH SRI.E.MOHAMMED SHAFI SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. ZONAL OFFICER KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,ZONAL OFFICE, EDAKKAD 670591,KANNUR DISTRICT

¶11

2. THE KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,KANNUR 670 001.

¶12

R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.) R1 & 2 BY ADV. SMT.S.AMBILY

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 10601 of 2016 (A)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

P1 COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO. 4607/2013 OF SRO KADACHIRA

¶18

P2 COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 10/7/2015

¶19

P3 COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE EDAKKAD PANCHAYAT SECRETARY

¶20

P4 COPY OF THE LETTER DAT3D 18/12/2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶21

P5 COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN FACVOUR OF THE MOTHER IN LAW OF THE PETITIONER

¶22

P6 COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 6/2/2016

¶23

P7 COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

JJJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶30

W.P.(C) No. 10601 of 2016 (A) -----------------------------------------Dated: 16^th November, 2016

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner is aggrieved with the denial of the request of the petitioner to permit remittance of building tax of a property, in which, 25 out of 27 shares were purchased by the petitioner and her husband by Ext.P1 title deed. Even according to the petitioner, admittedly, there are two other sharers whose rights have not been purchased. The predecessor-in-interest of the property was the mother of the petitioner, who was paying tax, as is indicated at Ext.P5. Ext.P3 is the application filed by the petitioner for change of name to that of the petitioner, for the purpose of payment of building tax. However, by Ext.P4 the Municipality noticed the two other sharers and directed the

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 10601/2016

¶34

-2-

¶35

petitioner to produce the legal heirship certificate of the two sharers, who are referred to specifically in Ext.P1 deed. The petitioner then issued Ext.P6 notice, wherein the details of all the legal heirs of the two sharers were shown and request was made to change the name in the Building Tax Assessment Register. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, being a stranger, cannot get the legal heirship certificate of others.

¶36

Admittedly, even going by Ext.P1, there are two sharers whose legal heirs (wife and children) also have been specifically conferred with rights as seen from Ext.P1. The two named persons in Ext.P1 are one Abdul Rahim and Abdul Khader. There is no defect in the Municipality having insisted on the petitioner producing the legal heirship certificate.

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 10601/2016

¶38

-3-

¶39

In such circumstance, it is for the petitioner to procure the legal heirship certificate or to approach the civil forum to resolve the issue of payment of tax, which, at best, is a private dispute, between the petitioner and the legal heirs of the two persons, whose title; as per Ext.P1 is retained. Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for declaration or enforcement of private rights as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P. and others - 2016 (4) KLJ 541 . The petitioner could also obtain the consent of the legal heirs, in which event the legal heirs would have to produce a legal heirship certificate also so as to enable the Building Tax Register to show the name of the petitioner, her husband as also the other legal heirs, who have a right flowing from Abdul Rahim and Abdul Khader, as per Ext.P1.

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 10601/2016

¶41

-4-

¶42

With the above liberty, the writ petition would

¶43

stand disposed of. No Costs.

¶44

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶45

jjj 16/11/16

M.T.P. Naseema v. Zonal Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.T.P. Naseema v. Zonal Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Prasad Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Harippad Police Station

Haseen Babu Vs the Kodur Grama Panchayath

Sunil Kumar T Vs the District Collector

Bimal Krishna Vs Veena N. Madhavan

Simon Kuruvila @ Roy Vs Payyavoor Grama Panchayath

T.Saithalavy Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer