Remanded

Jabeena Abraham v. District Collector, Palakkad

Kerala HC24 Nov 2016WP(C)/13527/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging non-acceptance of land tax due to a claim by a fifth respondent. Court directed the Tahsildar to hear issues between petitioners and the fifth respondent to determine tax acceptance before disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the Tahsildar to hear petitioners and fifth respondent regarding title/land tax acceptance and pass orders within two months.

Jabeena Abraham Vs District Collector, Palakkad — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 13527 of 2016 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. JABEENA ABRAHAM, W/O.ABRAHAM, AGED 55 YEARS, SECRETARY, NAVA NIRMAN EDUCATION AND WELFARE SOCIETY, VAZHAKKALA, KOCHI-682 021, RESIDING AT ANPAL BUILDINGS, BANERJI ROAD, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682018.

¶8

2. MR.C.V.PAUL, S/O.ULAHANNAN, AGED 89 YEARS, RESIDING AT LAMINA BUILDINGS, EDAPPALLY ROAD, KOCHI, PIN-682018, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.M.JOSHI SMT.SIJI K.PAUL SMT.ELIZABETH KOSHY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001.

¶12

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO), OTTAPPALAM, PIN-679 101.

¶13

3. THE TAHSILAR, MANNARKAD TALUK, PIN-678 582.

¶14

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SHOLAYAR VILLAGE, SHOLAYAR, PIN-678 581.

¶15

SKG

¶16

WP(C).No. 13527 of 2016 (M)

¶17

5. VIDYASAGAR, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 59 YEARS, NADUMURI HOUSE, NO.3/281, CHALAKUDY P.O., CHALAKUDY, PIN-680 307.

¶18

R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ R1-R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S. KANNAN

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

SKG

¶21

WP(C).No. 13527 of 2016 (M)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' --------------	EXHIBITS ---------
P1:	THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 11.10.04 IN FAVOUR OF 1ST PETITIONER.
P2:	THE TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 20/6/12 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER.
P3:	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 23.4.14 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER.
P4:	TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 23/4/14 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER.
P5:	THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 13/12/04 IN FAVOUR OF 2ND PETITIONER.
P6:	THE TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 2/5/12 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO 2ND PETITIONER.
P7:	THE TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 22/1/14 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO 2ND PETITIONER.
P8:	THE TRUE COPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 10/2/14 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER.
P9:	THE TRUE COPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 10/2/14 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO 2ND PETITIONER.
P10:	THE TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 19/3/2016 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' --------------	EXHIBITS --------- NIL

¶24

/TRUE COPY/

¶25

P.A. TO JUDGE SKG

¶26

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶27

W.P.(C). No. 13527 OF 2016

¶28

Dated this the 24^th day of November, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Petitioners purchased 44 acres of property in the year 2004, in Sholayar Village, with a view to start a school. Out of the 44 acres of the said property, first petitioner purchased property in Survey No. 1853/2, having an extent of 5.42 acres, as per sale deed No. 1203/2004, which is dated 11.10.2004. Similarly, second petitioner purchased property in Survey No. 1854/2, having an extent of 3.19 acres, as per sale deed No. 1734/2004, dated 13.12.2004. Petitioners were paying land tax of the properties, continuously from 2004 to 2014. As usual, they approached the fourth respondent to remit the land tax for the year 2015-2016, but the fourth respondent did not permit the petitioners to remit the land tax saying that the fifth respondent has put a claim over the said properties. Even

¶31

W.P.(C). No. 13527 OF 2016

¶32

¶33

though, petitioners tried to convince the fourth respondent that in 2004, petitioners purchased the property, and possessing and enjoying the property by paying land tax and doing cultivation, it was not acceptable to the fourth respondent. Petitioners have produced encumbrance free certificates also to the fourth respondent. However, no action is initiated to accept the land tax and issue receipt for the same, in respect of the properties. It is in this background, this writ petition is filed.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader and learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent and perused the documents on record and the pleading put forth by the respective parties.

¶35

The subject matter relates to non-acceptance of the land tax, under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. True, petitioners have produced documents to show that petitioners were in ownership and possession of the properties, by virtue of sale deeds and evident from Ext. P3 tax receipt and Ext. P4 possession certificate and the

¶36

W.P.(C). No. 13527 OF 2016

¶37

¶38

property was mutated in the name of the first petitioner. It is also seen that tax is accepted from the first petitioner upto the year 2014. The reason assigned by the fourth respondent for non-acceptance of the tax from the petitioners after 2014 is that, the fifth respondent has made a claim to the properties in question. In my considered opinion, the title is remaining, apparently with the petitioners. However, the circumstances under which the claim is raised by the fifth respondent can be ascertained by the third respondent. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that requisite directions are necessary to provide a quietus to the respective claims made by the petitioners and the fifth respondent to the properties in question.

¶39

Therefore, there will be a direction to the third respondent to consider the issues, remaining by and between the petitioners, and the fifth respondent in the perspective of the acceptance of land tax, and pass appropriate orders, within two months from the date of a copy of this judgment, after providing sufficient opportunity

¶40

W.P.(C). No. 13527 OF 2016 4

¶41

of hearing to the petitioners, and the fifth respondent. Needless to say, the acceptance of the land tax will be guided by the said orders, passed by the third respondent.

¶42

Writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

¶43

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶44

DCS

Jabeena Abraham v. District Collector, Palakkad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jabeena Abraham v. District Collector, Palakkad

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

Raveendran M Vs Union of India

Mosque Lane Resident'S Association Vs Biju Prabhakar, District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Ratheesh Vs Faisal

Madathil Thazhe Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Latheenthran M.N. & Others Vs District Collector, Ayyanthole & Ors.

Philip Agusty Vs State of Kerala