Disposed

Kunnummal Pavithran v. the Village Officer

Kerala HC29 Mar 2016WP(C)/36837/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged refusal to accept land tax due to disputed property boundaries. Court ordered petitioner to produce documents before prescribed authority for adjudication under Section 6A of the Land Tax Act. Authority must decide within three months.

What did the court decide?

Permit petitioner to produce documents before prescribed authority for adjudication; authority to decide land tax right within three months.

Kunnummal Pavithran Vs the Village Officer — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/9TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 36837 of 2008 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

KUNNUMMAL PAVITHRAN, S/O KUNHIRAMAN, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, KOLARI AMSOM, KALLUR DESOM,, KEECHERI.P.O.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUZHAKKUNNU, THALASSERY.

¶11

2. THE TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY.

¶12

3. KUTTIALIPPRATH IBRAHIM, S/O.AYISSU, MUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM, PALA DESOM, THALASSERY.

¶13

4. KUTTIALIPPRATH KUNHAMINA, D/O AYISSU, MUZHAKKUNNU AMSOM, PALA DESOM, THALASSERY.

¶14

R3-4 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.REJI THOMAS

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 36837 of 2008

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF JENM DEED NO.734/94 OF THE SRO, PERAVOOR DATED 15.3.1994.

¶20

EXHIBTI P2: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.342/2000 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KTHUPARAMBA DATED 6.11.2001.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2(a): COPY OF DECREE IN O.S.NO.342/2000 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA DATED 6.11.2001.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 13.5.1994.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3(a): COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 17.10.1995 EXHIBIT P3(b): COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.5.1997. EXHIBIT P3(C): COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 1.8.1998. EXHIBIT P3(d): COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 21.5.1999. EXHIBIT P3 (e): COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 5.5.2000. EXHIBIT P3(f): COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 21.7.2001. EXHIBIT P3(g): COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 2.1.2003. EXHIBIT P3(h): COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 27.2.2004.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF REQUEST MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.9.2005.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF NOTICE DATED 2.7.2008.

¶26

EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF INTIMATION GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.7.2008.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶28

EXHIBIT R4(a): COPYH OF COMMON ORDER DATED 4.7.2009 IN IA.NO.2825/2002 AND IA.NO.2826/2002 IN OS.NO.342/2000 OF THE MUNSIFF OF KUTHUPARAMBA. EXHIBIT R4(b): COPY OF RECEIPT IN IA.NO.2825/2002 IN OS.NO.342/00 OF THE MUNSIFF OF KUTHUPARAMBA.

¶29

EXHIBIT R4(c): COPY OF RECEIPT IN IA.NO.2826/2002 IN OS.NO.342/2000 OF THE MUNSIFF OF KUTHUPARAMBA.

¶30

EXHIBIT R4(d): COPY OF PLAINT IN OS.NO.197 OF 2004 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA.

¶31

/TRUE COPY/

¶32

PS TO JUDGE

¶33

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶34

----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 36837 of 2008

¶35

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 29^th March, 2016

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the first respondent to accept land tax (basic tax) including the arrears from the petitioner in respect of 1.72 acres of property comprised in Re.Sy.No.69/1 in Muzhakkunnam Village covered by Exhibit P1 title deed.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the leaned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.

¶39

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he had purchased the property covered by Exhibit P1 title deed in 1994 and had been paying the basic tax in respect of the same till the year 2004. However, on the reason that there is some dispute with regard to the property, the first respondent is refusing to accept the property tax from the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the civil suit filed by him as O.S.No.342/2000 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kuthuparamba had been decreed ex parte and that there is no justification for the Village Officer in not accepting the basic tax from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pendency of the civil case need not be a bar for

¶40

¶41

WP(C).36837/08

¶42

acceptance of land tax from a person, who in his possession of the property. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decisions of this Court reported in Joseph Kurian v. Village Officer [2010 KHC 6224] and Rimmy v. State of Kerala and others [2012 KHC 2981] in support of his contention.

¶43

The fourth respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that the ex parte decree produced as Exhibit P2 has been set aside by order dated 4.7.2009 and that the suit was later withdrawn. It is also stated that the fourth respondent had filed a suit before the Munsiff's Court as O.S.No.40/2004 for fixation of boundary, which was decreed and A.S.No.143/2012 is pending before the Additional Sub Court, Thalassery. It is therefore stated that the identity of the property is in dispute and it was in the above circumstances that Exhibit P6 notice had been issued to the petitioner to point out the boundaries. It is submitted by the second respondent in the counter affidavit filed that the petitioner was not ready to point out the boundaries of the property and since several cases were pending, land tax could not be accepted from the petitioner.

¶44

Learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent contend that where the right to the property itself is in question, the land tax can be accepted only from the “land holder” as defined in the Land Tax Act and an adjudication to determine the identity of land holder would

¶45

¶46

WP(C).36837/08

¶47

be necessary at the hands of the prescribed authority under Section 3 (7) of the Act. It is therefore submitted that this is a fit case where the petitioner is to take recourse to the adjudicatory proceedings under Section 6A of the Land Tax Act and the person who has raised the dispute is entitled to notice before the prescribed authority decides as to the right of the person as a land holder under Section 3 of the Act.

¶48

In the instant case, the petitioner claims title over the property in question on the basis of Exhibit P1 title deed. It is submitted that the suit filed by the legal heirs of the executor of Exhibit P1 for setting aside the title deed has ended in it being withdrawn and therefore Exhibit P1 subsists. However, it is stated that there is a dispute with regard to the boundaries of the property purchased by the petitioner and such dispute is now pending in appeal before the Sub Court, Thalassery. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that he has been issued with purchase certificate in his favour and it is on the basis of the same that he has been paying tax.

¶49

In the above circumstances, it is for the petitioner to produce all relevant documents before the prescribed authority under the Land Tax Act. On receipt of the documents as directed above, the prescribed authority under the Land Tax Act shall consider the issue as to the right of the petitioner to pay land tax, with notice to the petitioner and any other person interested, including the fourth respondent. Final

¶50

¶51

WP(C).36837/08

¶52

orders under Section 6A of the Act shall be passed by the authority within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶53

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶54

ANU SIVARAMAN

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

vgs29/3

Kunnummal Pavithran v. the Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunnummal Pavithran 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Divakaran Vs K.Ravikumaran

Mazhuvanor Grama Panchayath Vs Sinthil K.M.

T.v.Susheela Vs State of Kerala

The Manager, Wallardie Estate Vs the Genral Secretary, Peermade Thottam T

Anand Elamon Vs State of Kerala

C.P.Michael Vs the Lok Ayukatha