Allowed

Noushad v. District Collector

Kerala HC30 Nov 2016WP(C)/38175/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

P petitioners sought direction to receive land compensation without income tax deduction. Citing Section 96 of the LARR Act, 2013 and precedents, the court held tax cannot be levied and ordered disbursement of the full compensation to the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

The compensation payable to the petitioners shall be disbursed without deducting any amount towards income tax or stamp duty.

Noushad Vs District Collector — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 38175 of 2016 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. NOUSHAD, S/O. SAHUL HAMEED, ARAPPURATHALAKKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, PAROORKUZHI, PALLICHAL FROM 15/203, NABEESA MANZIL, EDAMANAKUZHI, BALARAMAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

2. SHAMILA, D/O. SUMAYYA BEEVI, ARAPPURATHALAKKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, PAROORKUZHI, PALLICHAL FROM 15/203, NABEESA MANZIL, EDAMANAKUZHI, BALARAMAPURAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.SUNIL KUMAR

¶10

SMT.A.SALINI LAL

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KODAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶13

2. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LA, LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARAMANA-KALIYIKKAVILA SPECIAL UNIT,

¶14

COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KODAPPANAKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶15

3. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I.S.PRESS ROAD, KOCHI-682 031.

¶16

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDHEEN R3 BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

WP(C).No. 38175 of 2016 (V)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO PETITIONERS IN LAC 455/2015. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.29939/2016.

¶22

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

¶23

/TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE

¶24

sts

¶25

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 38175 of 2016

¶27

Dated this the 30^th day of November, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking for a direction to the respondents to disburse the sale price of petitioners' property to the petitioners without deducting the amount towards income tax.

¶30

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

¶31

issue is already covered by judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.12194 of 2016 and connected cases, wherein a Division Bench of this Court held as under:

¶32

“3. It is seen that the very same issue has been considered by a learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1536 of 2016, whereby the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 12484 of 2016 and connected cases has been upheld. The learned Division Bench in the judgment dated 08.08.2016 in W.A. No. 1536 of 2016 has held thus:

¶33

“3. We find that the judgment of the learned single Judge is just and proper in as much as Section 96 of the Act, 2013 clearly discloses that no income tax or stamp duty shall

¶34

W.P.(C) No. 38175 of 2016

¶35

-2-

¶36

be levied on any award or agreement made under this Act, except under Section 46. It is not in dispute that Section 46 of the Act, 2013 is not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, it is amply clear that as per Section 96 of the Act, 2013, exemption is provided for levying income tax and stamp duty. In an identical case, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No. 1422 of 2015 has already concluded that income tax is not liable to be deducted from the compensation payable to similarly placed persons. The learned single Judge, following the dictum laid down in W.A. No. 1422 of 2015 and observing the provisions of Section 96 of the Act, 2013, has allowed the writ petitions directing the authorities to pay compensation to the petitioners, without deducting any amount towards income tax or stamp duty.”

¶37

In the light of the above, the legal position now stands clarified that in view of Section 96 of the Act, 2013, the deduction towards income tax cannot be made from the compensation payable to the land owners. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of clarifying the position as above and directing that the compensation be disbursed to the petitionerss without deducting any amount towards income tax.”

¶38

Taking into account the aforesaid facts, I do not think that anything further survives to be decided in the present writ petition. The amount shall be disbursed to the petitioners taking note of Section 96 of the Right to Fair

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 38175 of 2016

¶40

-3-

¶41

Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶42

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

A.M. SHAFFIQUE