Remanded

V.Ramakrishnan v. the Village Officer

Kerala HC25 Nov 2016WP(C)/2290/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order of the Additional Tahsildar that refused tax collection and mutation due to an alleged rival claim. The Court directed the Tribunal to verify documents, issue notices, and decide the dispute as to title within two months, ensuring opportunity of hearing. It also ordered a survey if measurement is necessary for tax payment.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P10 set aside; 2nd respondent directed to verify documents, issue notice, and decide dispute on merits within two months; measurement ordered if necessary.

V.Ramakrishnan Vs the Village Officer — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2290 of 2016 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

V. RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT GREESHMAM, KOLATHARA, KOZHIKODE.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN, SRI.P.A.HARISH.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE - 673 015.

¶11

2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 020.

¶12

3. PATHIYERI HANEESH, S/O. PATHIYERI CHOYI, P.O. ARAKKINAR,

¶13

BEYPORE, KOZHIKODE - 673 028.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.RON BASTIAN. R3 BY ADVS. SRI.P.R.SREEJITH, SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

WP(C).No. 2290 of 2016 (I)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 1635/2015 DT. 07.07.2015 OF SRO, MEENCHANDA EXECUTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

¶21

P2 - A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF-II, KOZHIKODE.

¶22

P3 - A TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY ACCOUNT PREPARED BY THE COURT AMIN.

¶23

P4 - A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF SUNILKUMAR DT. 20.08.2013.

¶24

P5 - A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF SUNILKUMAR DT. 23.07.2014.

¶25

P6 - A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF SUNILKUMAR DT. 04.05.2015.

¶26

P7 - A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

P8 - A TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶28

P9 - A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT. 26.10.2015.

¶29

P10 - A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 16.10.2015.

¶30

P11 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, MEENCHANDA.

¶31

P12 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, MEENCHANDA.

¶32

P13 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, MEENCHANDA.

¶33

P14 - A TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, MEENCHANDA.

¶34

....2/-

¶35

WP(C).No. 2290 of 2016 (I)

¶36

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶37

EXT.R3A COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.2227/1983 WHEREBY MEENAKSHI AMMA AND THEIR CHILDREN PARTITIONED THE PROPERTY.

¶38

EXT.R3B COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO.2887/1987 WHEREBY MEENAKSHI AMMA GIFTED 11.5 CENTS OF PROPERTY FROM THE ''AA'' SCHEDULE PROPERTY TO PANKAJAKSHI AMMA.

¶39

EXT.R3C COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S DOC. NO.686/2010 PURCHASING 2.165 ARES OF PROPERTY.

¶40

EXT.R3D COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT'S DOC. NO.939/2011 PURCHASING 2.55 ARES OF PROPERTY.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶45

W.P.(C) No.2290 of 2016

¶46

Dated this the 25^th day of November, 2016

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

Petitioner purchased 3.5 cents of land situated in R.S.No.96/1 of Beypore Village by virtue of a registered sale deed bearing No.1635/2015 dated 07.07.2015 of SRO, Meenchanda. His predecessor in interest had purchased the property pursuant to a court sale, and after taking delivery of the property, mutation was effected and remitted tax in his name. A possession certificate was also obtained evidencing the fact that the auction purchaser was in possession of the property. After verifying the requisite details, petitioner purchased the property. However, when the petitioner sought for effecting mutation of the property and to pay tax, 1^st respondent objected the same contending that there is a rival claim by the 3^rd respondent. The 2^nd respondent upon considering the rival claim, by Ext.P10 order, held that tax need not be collected from anyone. According to the petitioner, the document relied upon by the 3^rd respondent to

¶49

prove his title as is seen from Ext.P10 was not registered in

¶50

W.P.(C) No.2290 of 2016 2

¶51

the jurisdictional SRO, but in another SRO. It is in this background, seeking appropriate directions, this writ petition is filed.

¶52

Third respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that the 3^rd respondent became vested with 'E' schedule property as per Ext.R3(a) partition deed. Petitioner has secured 'A' schedule property in Thak No.2 of Ext.R3(a). Therefore, it can be seen that, as per the documents, petitioner as well as the 3^rd respondent are making claim in respect of different properties. This was misunderstood by the 2^nd respondent and happened to pass Ext.P10 order. This is the background nature of the case put forth by the respective parties.

¶53

Taking note of the respective submissions made across the Bar, I think Ext.P10 order passed by the 2^nd respondent is based absolutely on a misconception of facts and has no foundation at all. Therefore, I set aside Ext.P10 and direct the 2^nd respondent to take on board the application submitted by the petitioner, issue notice to the petitioner as well as the 3^rd respondent, verify Ext.R3(a) document and take a decision in accordance with law. Needless to say, if an order

¶54

¶55

W.P.(C) No.2290 of 2016

¶56

is passed in favour of the petitioner, as also in favour of the 3^rd respondent, the land tax shall be accepted in accordance with the provisions of the Land Tax Act, 1961, and mutation shall be effected taking note of the necessary changes made in the register prepared for the Land Tax Act, 1961, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the respective parties. If the 2^nd respondent finds that the property is to be measured in order to enable the parties to pay land tax in respect of their properties, a measurement shall be conducted after issuing notice to all interested and affected persons within three months.

¶57

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶58

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

//true copy//

P.S. to Judge

St/-

28.11.2016

V.Ramakrishnan v. the Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Ramakrishnan v. the Village Officer

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

Jabeena Abraham Vs District Collector, Palakkad

Madathil Thazhe Abraham Vs State of Kerala

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

Somarajan J.T Vs K.P.S.C.

K.C.Antony Vs the Village Officer

T.P.Prakashan Vs State of Kerala