Disposed

Mohammedkutty v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Oct 2016WP(C)/19969/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Kerala directed the Village Officer to consider an application for accepting land tax remittances by the petitioner, the owner of land. The court directed the petitioner to produce certified copies of civil court orders to resolve the Vishwanath ambiguity and direct the authority to accept tax if proven.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's application for tax acceptance within two months of legal receipt after hearing.

Mohammedkutty Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/29TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 19969 of 2016 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MOHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.LATE CHALILAKATH KUNHAMMEDKUTTY, AR. NAGAR AMSOM, PUKAYUR DESOM, TIRURANGADI.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.CHITHRA R.SHENOY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶11

2. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM,

¶12

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ABDUL RAHIMAN NAGAR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676305.

¶13

BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

mbr/

¶16

WP(C).No. 19969 of 2016 (U)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN OA.NO.2/1992. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN RSA.NO. 293/2007. P3 : TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DT. 02.07.2004 ISSUED BY AR NAGAR VILLAGE.

¶20

P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19.12.2015 FILED BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AR NAGAR.

¶21

P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AR. NAGAR, DT. 27.05.2016.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: -----------------------

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶28

W.P.(C). No.19969 of 2016 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 21^st day of October, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Petitioner is one of the legal heirs of one Chalilakath Kunhammedkutty, who is the owner of 99.5 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.398/4 of A.R Nagar Village. A suit was

¶31

filed against the said person by one Nechichinakkal Kelu as O.S. No.2/1992 before the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the petitioner and his brothers from trespassing into the above said property. The suit was dismissed. Aggrieved, A.S. No.39/1997 filed before the Sub Court, Tirur was also dismissed. Consequent appeal, RSA No.293/2007 was dismissed. Thereafter, R.P.No.1360/2008 filed by the legal heirs of Kelu was also dismissed. According to the petitioner, petitioner was remitting tax up to the period 2004 - 2005, but due to pendency of the litigation aforesaid, the tax

¶32

was not being accepted by the statutory authorities. Accordingly petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application before

¶33

W.P.(C). No.19969 of 2016

¶34

¶35

the 3^rd respondent, however, the same was not accepted by the 3^rd respondent stating that, same can only be done only after receiving appropriate orders from this court. It is in this background, challenging Ext.P5 and other related reliefs, petitioner has approached this court by filing this writ petition.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the petitioner.

¶37

The subject issue is a matter to be considered by the authority under the Kerala Land Tax Act and Rules. Apparently the authority has issued Ext.P5 order on a mistaken premise that, the proceedings pending before the civil court as well as this court is not concluded, therefore, it is for the petitioner to produce the certified copy of the necessary orders and impress upon the statutory authorities with respect to the same and also that, petitioner being the owner of property is entitled as of right to pay tax and the authority is bound to receive the same as per the Kerala Land

¶38

W.P.(C). No.19969 of 2016

¶39

¶40

Tax Act and Rules.

¶41

Taking note of the respective submissions, there will be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to take on board Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioner and consider the same in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and take a decision on the same within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, if the title of the petitioner is found true, tax shall be accepted without any hesitation.

¶42

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶45

smv 21.10.2016

Mohammedkutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammedkutty v. State of Kerala

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

Kerala State Electricty Board Vs M.P. Musthafa

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Vs P.K.Shabeerali

Thomas J @ K.J.Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

Mr.Jerry Sunny Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar v Vs the Regional Officer

Bennarditha Vs the Authorised Officer, Canara Bank