Disposed

Kunhipathumma v. the Village Officer

Kerala HC25 May 2016WP(C)/4080/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition wherein the petitioner seeks entitlement to basic land tax on the property. The court directed the first respondent to verify if the disputed property falls under a specific purchase certificate and collect tax accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The first respondent is directed to verify if the property in Ext.P1 is covered by Ext.P2 Purchase Certificate and if so, collect the basic land tax within six weeks.

Kunhipathumma Vs the Village Officer — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2016/4TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 4080 of 2016 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

KUNHIPATHUMMA, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.ABDULLA, KIZHAKKEDATH VADAKEPURAYIL, NARATH, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALLYAD, IRIKKUR - 670 593, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

2. THE TAHSILDAR,

¶12

IRITTY - 670 703, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶13

3. THE STATE OF KERALA,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

msv/

¶18

WP(C).No. 4080 of 2016 (H)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1:THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.1806/2003

¶22

P2:THE TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.574/197

¶23

P3:THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2011-12

¶24

P4:THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.05.2015

¶25

P5:THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 04.07.2015

¶26

P6:THE TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.874/76

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶33

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶34

WP(C).No.4080 of 2016-H.

¶35

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶36

Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2016.

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is

¶39

that the basic land tax in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 assignment deed is not being collected by the first respondent.

¶40

It is seen that the property covered by Ext.P1 assignment deed originally belonged to one Mamu. He obtained the same by virtue of Ext.P2 purchase certificate. Later, he sold the property to one Rukhiya. The petitioner purchased the property from Rukhiya as per Ext.P1 document. Though the property of the petitioner is covered by Ext.P2 purchase certificate, its number was wrongly mentioned in the title deed of

¶41

the petitioner. The number of Ext.P2 purchase certificate is 574/1976, but its number was shown wrongly in Ext.P1 as 874/1976. It is on account of the said reason that the first respondent is not collecting the basic land tax in respect of the

¶42

WP(C).No.4080/2016-H.

¶43

¶44

property of the petitioner.

¶45

The petitioner has produced purchase certificate

¶46

No.874/1976. Ext.P6 is the said purchase certificate. Ext.P6 purchase certificate prima facie indicates that it has nothing to do with the property of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 assignment deed.

¶47

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to verify whether Ext.P1 property is covered by Ext.P2 purchase certificate and if it is found that Ext.P1 property is covered by Ext.P2 purchase certificate, the basic land tax in respect of the same shall be accepted. This exercise shall be completed by the first respondent within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶48

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶49

Kvs/-

¶50

// true copy //

Kunhipathumma v. the Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunhipathumma 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

M/S.Sherwood Technocrats Vs State of Kerala

Firdouse International Trading Co. Vs Union of India

Delta Aggregates and Sand Pvt. Ltd. Vs the General Manager

Manu J.Sivadas Vs the Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education

Bipin Baby Vs the Superintending Engineer

Pullanjiyottu Kizhakke Veettil Kunhi Parvathi Amma Vs the District Collector, Kannur