Petitioner sought to pay land tax but was refused by Village Officer due to pending ceiling proceedings. High Court set aside refusal based on Land Board findings that properties were not part of ceiling-cyclable land and allowed tax payment.
Order Ext.P6 (refusal of tax) set aside; petitioner permitted to pay land tax.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/24TH BHADRA, 1939
WP(C).No. 29961 of 2016 (U)
PETITIONER:
JITHESH., S/O KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 34, NARIKKUNI EDAMANA ILLOM P.O.PERUVALLUR, VIA KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.HARISH R. MENON SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-676505,
2. THE THAHASILDAR, THIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-676 306
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUVALLUR, THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.676306.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. B. VINOD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sdr/-
WP(C).No. 29961 of 2016 (U)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
sdr/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J
W.P(C) No. 29961 of 2016 U
Dated this the 15th day of September, 2017 J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is in possession of 94 cents of land
comprised in Resurvey No.193/3 of Peruvallur Amsom, the
land tax of which has been declined to be accepted by the
Village Officer as per Ext.P6. The petitioner is said to have obtained the properties now owned by him as per Exts.P2 from a tenant who purchased the same as per Ext.P1 purchase certificate. The total extent as covered by Exts.P1 & P2 was
1.48.92 Acres. The petitioner had sold certain extents of property and it is for the balance extent remaining with the petitioner that he attempted to pay the land tax as he has been remitting for all these years. The refusal to accept the tax by
Ext.P6 was by reason of a Suo motu proceeding pending
against the lands, comprised in Sy.No.193/2, numbered as C.R.
WP(C) No.29961/2016
: 2 :
522/73 before the Taluk Land Board, Thirurangadi.
the petitioner's father [Cheriya Krishnan Namboothiri] as per TLB(K) 362/77 of the Taluk Land Board, Kozhikkode. The petitioner's father's contention before the Taluk Land Board was that the said properties comprised in Sy.No. 193/2 and many other properties set apart to his share by a partition deed
was outstanding in the name of third parties. The specific properties in Sy.No.193/2 were in the possession of one Raman Nampoothiri as per Document No. 1880 of 1960; who had subsequently obtained purchase certificate as seen from Ext.P1. The rejection of the claims raised by the declarant was challenged before this Court leading to Ext.P3 the order in CRP; remanding the issue for fresh consideration. The contention with respect to the properties comprised in Sy.No. 193/2 was specifically noticed by this Court, in Ext.P3 and
WP(C) No.29961/2016
: 3 :
Ext.P1 document and the purchase certificate obtained by
Raman Nampoothiri was also noticed.
the Taluk Land Board as per Ext.P7 found that the properties in Sy.No. 193/2, now in the possession of the petitioner, along
with other properties scheduled in the partition deed were in fact outstanding in the name of Raman Namboothiri and other third parties. The properties in the possession of tenants was found to be not liable to be included in the ceiling proceedings initiated against the petitioner's father.
Ext.P2 conveyance deed from the tenant who obtained fixity of
tenure by virtue of the purchase certificate at Ext.P1. When the petitioner approached the Village Officer for paying tax, the Village Officer refused to accept the tax on the finding that there is a ceiling proceedings pending as C.R 522/73
WP(C) No.29961/2016
: 4 :
before the Tirurangadi Taluk Land Board which finds the said
property to be in the possession of the grand father of the Petitioner (Valiya Krishnan Namboothiri). In fact, the ceiling proceedings against the father of the petitioner was also on the ground that he was in possession of the property as succeeded to from his father. The very same property in Re.Sy.No.193/2 was sought to be included in the land possessed by the father of the petitioner which the father contended; before the Land Board and before the High Court, was not in his possession and was in the possession of Pullangod Illoth Raman Namboothiri as is seen from Ext.P3 also. It is the said property
which has been excluded from the properties of the petitioner's father as per Ext.P7.
petitioner was dropped specifically finding that he is only in possession of 2.22 Acres in Re.Sy. 193/4. It was found by the
WP(C) No.29961/2016
: 5 :
Taluk Land Board that the tenancy claimed by the father of the petitioner is proper. The property in the possession of the petitioner's father as evident from Ext.P4, comprises a total of 8.07 ½ ordinary acres. (4.85 ½ standard acres) It was also found that the petitioner's father was entitled to retain up to 5 standard acres subject to a maximum of 7.50 acres being a single member declarant. It was found that there was no excess land in the case of the petitioner's father. In such circumstances, there can be no ceiling proceedings with respect to that property, against the grand father of the petitioner.
the said property in 1960 as per Ext.P3 document based on which he had also obtained fixity of tenure as per Ext.P1 in 1978. Hence, though the lands were included in the ceiling proceedings against the grand father of the petitioner
WP(C) No.29961/2016
: 6 :
obviously Raman Namboothiri had purchased the same as per
Ext.P1 under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. In such circumstance there can be no inclusion of the said property covered by the purchase certificate in the ceiling proceedings of the grand father of the petitioner. With respect to the father
of the petitioner it is found that the said property was outstanding in the name of Raman Namboothiri, as obtained by Ext.P1 purchase certificate. The petitioner has purchased the property from the tenant and there could be no default
found in his title. In such circumstance Ext.P6 is set aside.
The petitioner shall be permitted to pay the land tax.
Writ petition would stand allowed. No costs.
Sd/(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)
jma
//true copy//
P.A to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner is liable to pay land tax on properties acquired after exclusion from ceiling proceedings.
Whether titles of petitioner and tenants are valid despite pending ceiling proceedings.
Whether Ext.P6 order refusing tax payment is sustainable given Land Board findings.
Jithesh.
District Collector Malappuram
Thanasildar, Thirurangadi
Village Officer, Peruvallur
K.Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
