Allowed

Sulfath v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC30 Sept 2016WP(C)/25823/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court directed the Respondents to assess tax on the petitioner's land as garden land after a pond covering it was filled up. The Court held that since the pond exemption under the repealed Malabar Registration Act no longer applies, tax must be levied on the land's current usage.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to apply to the Tahsildar to assess tax on the entire land as garden land and effect necessary changes in the Basic Tax Register within one month.

Sulfath Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/8TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 25823 of 2016 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

SULFATH,

¶8

W/O. PANAMBATH KANDI NOUSHAD, KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE & DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND THE SUB COLLECTOR TRISSUR DISTRICT,

¶12

TRISSUR - 680 001.

¶13

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KAIPAMANGALAM, TRISSUR - 680 681.

¶14

3. THE TAHSILDHAR KODUNGALLUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, KODUNGALLUR - 680 683.

¶15

4. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶16

5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRISSUR - 680 001.

¶17

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RENIL ANTO

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Msd.

¶20

WP(C).No. 25823 of 2016 (C)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO.3519/15 DATED 21.11.2015 OF MATHILAKAM SRO.

¶24

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 20.06.1994 OF MATHILAKAM SRO.

¶25

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 19.02.2016 OF KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE.

¶26

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 18.12.2015 OF 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND SKETCH DATED 31.01.2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶34

---------------------------------W.P(C). No.25823 of 2016-C

¶35

---------------------------------Dated this the 30^th day of September, 2016

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The petitioner, the absolute owner in possession of about 21 cents of land, covered by Gift Deed No.3519/2015 (Ext.P1), seeks assessment of the pond, which existed in the land,but has been covered over the years and fresh assessment of the entire land as garden land. The petitioner, though seeks a correction in the entry of Basic Tax Register [BTR], effectively the prayer made is for reassessment and change of description in the BTR.

¶38

The facts to be noticed are that the

¶39

W.P(C). No.25823 of 2016-C

¶40

¶41

petitioner's mother purchased 21 cents of land as per Ext.P2. The land was comprised in Survey Nos.492/13 and 492/12 of Kaipamangalam Village. However, in Ext.P2 Deed, only Survey No.492/12 was shown. Subsequently, when a Gift Deed was executed in favour of the petitioner, the correction was made and 16.01 cents was shown in Survey No.492/12 and 4.11 cents in Survey No.492/13. Originally there was a pond in the said land having an extent of 2.850 cents. There was no tax paid for the same and hence there could be no Possession Certificate obtained by the petitioner for the entire land in her possession.

¶42

The petitioner approached the Revenue Authorities and paid tax for the entire land in her possession, as is indicated in Ext.P3. But the BTR describes 2.850 cents as a pond and is

¶43

W.P(C). No.25823 of 2016-C

¶44

¶45

included as unassessed in the BTR. The petitioner hence approached the Tahsildar, who has filed a report as seen at Ext.P4.

¶46

Ext.P4 details the discrepancy earlier occurred in drawing of Ext.P2 deed and the correction made under Ext.P1. It is also noticed in Ext.P4 that Survey No.492/12 originally contained a pond of 5 cents, out of which 2.850 cents remain in possession of the petitioner and comprised within the 16.01 cents of her property in that Survey number. The Tahsildar also recommends that the tax be received for the said land also as assessed under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961.

¶47

The learned Government Pleader has filed a statement, in which a communication addressed to the Addl. Chief Secretary is produced as Annexure R3(a). Annexure R3(a) speaks of the

¶48

W.P(C). No.25823 of 2016-C

¶49

¶50

Malabar Registration Act, 1895, which exempted ponds from payment of land tax and the same having been repealed by Kerala Repealing and Amendment Ordinance, 2005. The said ordinance was never placed in the House, but the communication refers to the report of 2008 of the Kerala Land Reform Commission, which opined that going by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Venkata Reddy and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1985 (3) SCC 198], the repeal of the Malabar Act can be said to be made effective.

¶51

Further it is also pointed out that the

¶52

Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 has been brought into force. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner also specifically refers to Section 5 which levies a basic tax on all lands of whatever description and held under whatever

¶53

W.P(C). No.25823 of 2016-C

¶54

¶55

tenure; inter alia situated in the Malabar

¶56

area, for a period commencing on and from 1st September, 1957 and ending on 31st March 1958 and thereafter for every financial year commencing on and from the 1st day of April, 1958.

¶57

In view of the above the exemption of

¶58

ponds from payment of tax would not be applicable and the petitioner would be entitled to pay tax for the same as garden land especially since the petitioner submits that the same was not converted by the petitioner and had over the years been filled up and is now lying as a pucca land. It is also specifically stated in the statement that the land is also not included in the data bank.

¶59

In such circumstance, the petitioner shall make an application before the Tahsildar

¶60

W.P(C). No.25823 of 2016-C

¶61

¶62

who shall assess the tax due on the entire land in possession of the petitioner as garden land and also effect necessary changes in the BTR on the basis of the assessment made, if necessary after conducting a physical inspection of the property. This exercise shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The inspection shall be carried on with notice to the petitioner and final orders shall be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶63

Writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶66

//True Copy//

¶67

P.A. to Judge.

¶68

sp/jma/01/10/16

Sulfath v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sulfath v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.v.Sasidharan Nair Vs Dr. a.Kausigan

Antony Joseph Vs East Eleri Grama Panchayath

Aleyamma Vs Rayamangalam Grama Panchayath

Babu Vs Ayillalath Arunapriya

Christian Sahaya Sabha Vs the Mathilakam Grama Panchayat

Arun.S.Nair Vs Village Officer, Mulakkulam