Dismissed

C.O.Poulose v. the Tahsildar,Aluva

Kerala HC7 Dec 2017WP(C)/18074/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash an order refusing to accept land tax from the petitioner. The court held that the statutory authority acted based on factual circumstances and there was no arbitrary action. The court dismissed the petition but left open the petitioner's liberty to claim the property. The court did not engage with any case law in its decision.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to make any claim in respect of the property in accordance with law, if advised so.

C.O.Poulose Vs the Tahsildar,Aluva — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 18074 of 2016 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

C.O.POULOSE

¶8

S/O. OUSEPH, CHIRAKKAL HOUSE KIDANGOOR P.O., VIA ANGAMALI ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN

¶10

SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SMT.A.ANJANA SMT.K.S.SMITHA

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-683101.

¶13

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER KOTHAKULANGARA SOUTH VILLAGE (THURAVOOR VILLAGE) ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683572.

¶14

3. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683101

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. PRINCY XAVIER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 18074 of 2016 (H)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.492/71 OF SRO, ANGAMALY ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.

¶22

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA NO.13554/76 OF LAND TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM.

¶23

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.17-10-12 MADE THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1.

¶24

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DT.10-6-2013 SENT BY R3 IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.

¶25

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT.2-11-12 SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THURAVOOR TO THE TAHSILDAR.

¶26

P6: TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SEC.72 F OF THE KERALA LAND REFORMS ACT IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.

¶27

P7: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SIGNED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM ON 25-11-1976 TO BE ATTACHED ALONG WITH THE ORDER PASSED UNDER EC.72F OF THE KERALA LAND REFORMS ACT.

¶28

P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LAST BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THURAVOOR VILLAGE ON 2-11-12 FOR THE LANDS MENTIONED IN EXT.P1.

¶29

P9: TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DT. 16-3-1994 RELATING TO THE PROPERTIES COMPRISED IN SURVEY NO.440/2B EXTENDING TO 8.5 CENTS IN THURAVOOR VILLAGE.

¶30

P10: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN WPC 25026/15 DT.19-11-15.

¶31

P11: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT.1-4-16 ISSUED BY R3.

¶32

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶38

W.P.(C). No. 18074 OF 2016

¶39

Dated this the 07^th day of December, 2017

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P11 proceedings dated 01.04.2016 issued by the third respondent, where it is held that the third respondent is not liable to receive land tax from the petitioner against the puramboke property allegedly in possession of the petitioner and further that the petitioner is entitled to pay the tax in which the petitioner has got clear title.

¶42

Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

¶43

Petitioner is the owner and occupier allegedly of about 79 Ares of land in Survey No. 116/3, 116/4 and 114/ part in Thuravoor Village, Aluva Taluk. The said property has been devolved upon the petitioner, as per Document No. 492/71 of SRO, Angamaly, as per Patta No. 13554/76 of Land Tribunal, Kottayam. As per the Thandaper

¶44

W.P.(C). No. 18074 of 2016

¶45

¶46

Register, maintained in the Village Office, Thuravoor, an extent of 0079 Ares of land lying in new Survey No. 116/3 (Old Survey No. 440/2B/part) is shown in the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner was paying basic tax for the lands owned and possessed by him on the strength of Ext.P1 document. However, the tax for the land mentioned in Ext.P2 was not accepted by the Village Officer stating that the lands mentioned in the said certificate is Government Land. But, the tax for the properties mentioned in Ext.P2 were accepted by the third respondent upto the year 1994 and thereafter, they have refused to accept tax and hence petitioner preferred W.P.(C). No. 25026/2015, seeking appropriate reliefs, which was disposed of, as per judgment dated 19.11.2015, directing the third respondent to take a decision on the application submitted by the petitioner. It was thereupon that Ext.P11 order is now passed by the third respondent refusing to accept tax for the excess property allegedly held by the petitioner in his

¶47

W.P.(C). No. 18074 of 2016 3

¶48

possession.

¶49

I have perused the pleadings and the documents on record and heard learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶50

The sole question to be considered is whether any manner of interference is warranted to Ext.P11 order passed by the third respondent, dated 01.04.2016. It is evident from Ext.P11 that petitioner has clear title only for a portion of the property claimed by the petitioner. It was thereupon that the statutory authority refused to accept the land tax from the petitioner allegedly in possession of the petitioner. It is also stated thereunder that the property in which petitioner seeks to pay the land tax is a canal puramboke for which petitioner cannot make any claim. The contentions raised by the petitioner as well as the recital contained in Ext.P11 order clearly exemplifies that the third respondent has passed Ext.P11 order based on factual circumstances. This Court is not expected to sit over the factual findings made in Ext.P11.

¶51

W.P.(C). No. 18074 of 2016 4

¶52

I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P11 order for the foundational fact that consequent to the directions issued by this Court, as per Ext. P10 judgment, petitioner was issued with the notice of hearing and the preliminary requirements under law was carried out by the third respondent. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any arbitrary or illegal action on the part of the third respondent in passing Ext.P11 order. Moreover, as I have pointed out that there are no established proof produced before this Court to enter into a finding other than the one entered by the third respondent, as per Ext.P11 order.

¶53

Therefore, the writ petition has no sustenance and the same is dismissed, however, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to make any claim in respect of the property, in accordance with law, if advised so.

¶54

DCS

¶55

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

C.O.Poulose v. the Tahsildar,Aluva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.O.Poulose v. the Tahsildar,Aluva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Rajendran Vs Ms.Mercy

D.Johny Vs Sri Kamala Vardhana Rao

Rupesh Ravindran Vs Kerala Water Authority

Jayakumar Vs Rishiraj Singh

Aiswarya Jayaram Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Nikunjam Construction Pvt.Ltd Vs State of Kerala