Dismissed

P.Kumaran v. the Tahsildar Ottapalam

Kerala HC20 May 2016WP(C)/8823/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Village Officer to accept basic tax and issue a possession certificate in respect of the petitioner's property. The Court extended the benefit of a previous judgment in an identical situation, noting that this direction is without prejudice to any future proceedings against the purchase certificate.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent (Village Officer) is directed to accept the basic tax and issue a possession certificate, without prejudice to future proceedings.

P.Kumaran Vs the Tahsildar Ottapalam — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2016/20TH VAISAKHA 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 8823 of 2016 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.KUMARAN S/O.PAREKATTIL KRISHNAN, MANAGING TRUSTEE, PAREKATTIL KRISHNAN MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, KOTTAPURAM DESOM, KARIMPUZHA I VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE TAHSILDAR OTTAPALAM PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 101.

¶11

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARIMPUZHA I VILLAGE PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 513

¶12

3. THE TALUK LAND BOARD MANNARKAD, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 582.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 8823 of 2016 (C)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.483/1976, ISSUED BY SREEKRISHNAPURAM LAND TRIBUNAL.

¶19

P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NUMBER 652/1983 OF THE SRO, MANNARKAD.

¶20

P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX PAID RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶21

P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DT 18-6-2009 IN WPC. NO.26227/2008

¶22

P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 3-11-2010 IN WPC.NO.21093/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶23

P6 : A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT 5-4-2013 IN WPC.NO.3820/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶29

- - - - W.P.(C).No.8823 of 2016

¶30

- - - - Dated this the 20^th day of May, 2016

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶33

The grievance of the petitioner is that the basic tax in respect of his property is not being collected by the second respondent, on the ground that there are some land ceiling proceedings in respect of the properties under the very same survey number. It is also contended by the petitioner that he is not being issued a possession certificate also on the aforesaid ground. The petitioner claims title over the property by virtue of Ext.P1 purchase certificate. It is seen that in an identical situation, in respect of a property owned by another under the disputed survey number, this Court passed Ext.P4 judgment,

¶34

W.P.(c).No.8823 of 2016

¶35

: 2 :

¶36

directing the Village Officer concerned to accept the basic tax and to issue possession certificate, without prejudice to the proceedings, if any, to be initiated against the petitioner. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to extend the same benefit to the petitioner herein also.

¶37

In the result, the second respondent is directed to accept the basic tax in respect of the property of the petitioner, without prejudice to the proceedings, if any, to be initiated against the purchase certificate obtained by the petitioner.

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶39

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶40

sm/

P.Kumaran v. the Tahsildar Ottapalam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Kumaran v. the Tahsildar Ottapalam

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

K.M.Philip Vs Chief Engineer, Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Abdul Samad Vs the District Collector

Saneesh J Vs the Tahsildar

Subin Raj Vs Government of India

Saraswathy Gopi Vs the District Collector

Mariyam Vs Kerala State Haj Committee