Disposed

Pazhani v. Secretary,State Land Board and Others

Kerala HC1 Sept 2016WP(C)/6497/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged actions against his exempted land, alleging threats of surrender. The Court found the apprehension baseless based on a clear order by the Taluk Land Board exempting the property. The Court held the Village Officer must accept tax and ordered the petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; it was held that the apprehension of taking over the exempted land is baseless and the Village Officer must accept tax.

Pazhani Vs Secretary,State Land Board and Others — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/10TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

W.P.(C).No. 6497 of 2008 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

PAZHANI, AGED 65 YEARS,

¶8

S/O LATE ARUMUGHAN,

ATTACHERYKALAM,

THATHAMANGALAM,

CHITUR TALUK,

PALAKKAD.

BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

1. THE SECRETARY, STATE LAND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD.

¶17

3. THE CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD, CHITTUR TALUK, CHITTUR.

¶18

4. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHITTUR.

¶19

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THATHAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD.

¶20

R1 TO R5 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH PETER

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P.(C).No. 6497 of 2008 (W)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶25

EXT.P-1 SALE DEED NO.1384 OF SRO CHITTUR DATED 22.8.73 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY E.K.CHANDRAN KUTTY EXT.P-2 SALE DEED NO.817/1971 OF SRO CHITTUR DATED 16.6.1971 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF E.K.CHANDRANKUTTY BY KRISHNAMOORTHY, HIS CHILDREN AND HIS SISTER VIJAYAKALYANAM AMMAL EXT.P-3 PROCEEDINGS OF TALUK LAND BOARD, CHITTUR NO.33/78 DATED 8.6.2006 (SIC 8.6.2007) EXT.P-4 REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR (FIRST RESPONDENT) ON 19.12.2007

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL

//True Copy//

P.A. To Judge

P.V.Asha, J.

============================== W.P.(C)No.6497 of 2008

¶33

============================== Dated this, the 01^st day of September, 2016.

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The petitioner filed this Writ Petition, complaining that the respondents 4 and 5 were taking action to take over

¶36

his land saying that the same was liable to be surrendered, as per Ext.P3 Proceedings. It is also the case of the petitioner that, the Village Officer is not accepting the tax, alleging that, the property having an extent of 87 cents in Survey Nos.878/3, 879/2 and 880/2 of Thathamangalam Village, which he purchased as per Document No.1384/73 of SRO, Chittur, is liable to be surrendered.

¶37

The petitioner submitted that, as per Ext.P3 order passed by the Taluk Land Board, petitioner's property is exempted, as can be seen from the chart given in Paragraph 3, wherein, the said property is covered by Item 3 in the chart and specifically referred to in Paragraph 7, which says that the property in

¶38

W.P.(C)No.6497 of 2008

¶39

: 2 :

¶40

Survey Nos.877, 878, 879 and 880 are exempted under

¶41

Section 81.

¶42

The 3^rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit,

¶43

stating the following in Paragraph No.4:

¶44

“4. It is submitted that during the course of the trial of SM 33/78 the petitioner filed a claim petition before the Taluk Land Board. The Taluk Land Board considered the petition and exempted an extent of 87 cents of land purchased by him from the declarent of the case. An extent of 87 cents of land owned by the petitioner has been already exempted from the excess land, government having no intention to take over the land in Survey Nos.878/3, 879/2 and 880/2 of Tathamangalam Village owned by the petitioner. Moreover the land ordered for surrender as excess land is detailed in the Exhibit P3 Order and land other than the land mentioned in Exhibit P3 order will not be taken possession by this respondent.”

¶45

In the light of the statement contained in Paragraph 4, the apprehension of the petitioner that respondents will take over the property, is baseless. There is no reason for the Village Officer for not

¶46

W.P.(C)No.6497 of 2008 : 3 :

¶47

accepting the tax on the ground that the above property of petitioner is not exempted as per Ext.P3. The 3^rd respondent has already stated that, there is no intention for taking possession of the property of petitioner covered by Ext.P1 document. Therefore, in case, the petitioner submits application for mutation, the respondents shall take appropriate action to effect mutation, in accordance with law in the light of the statement contained in the counter affidavit as well as Ext.P3 order by which the land stands exempted.

¶48

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

P.V.Asha, Judge.

Bb/05/09/2016

[True copy]

P.A to Judge

Pazhani v. Secretary,State Land Board and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pazhani v. Secretary,State Land Board and Others

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

C.Y.a.Rahim Vs the Secretary

B.S.Vsanthi Amma Vs Smt.Nalini Netto

Dr. George Justine v. Vs K.M. Abraham

P.Aboobacker Vs State of Kerala & Others

Dr.P.K.Raghavan Vs State of Kerala

K.N.Viswanathan Vs State of Kerala and Another