Disposed

Abitha M.L. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Mar 2017WP(C)/417/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner faced tax mutation for only 6 cents of 8.5 cents owned property, triggering an application to the Additional Tahsildar. The court directed the Additional Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's objections within three weeks and decide within two months before disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Additional Tahsildar to receive objections within three weeks and consider legislation within two months.

Abitha M.L. Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | 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 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/25TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 417 of 2017 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ABITHA M.L., W/O.SANKARANKUTTY, AGED 31 YEARS, RUGMA RAJI, PARVATHIPURAM GRAMAM, CHITTATINKARA DESOM, ATTINGAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI SMT.INDIRA RAVEENDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF REVENUE, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 001

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶12

3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶13

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VARKALA VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶14

5. THE TALUK SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶15

R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

WP(C).No. 417 of 2017 (B)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.4487/2007 OF VARKALA SRO EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1603/2010 DATED 29/4/2010 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VARKALA, CHIRAYINKEEZHU DATED 15/4/2013 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF OPINION TENDERED BY ADVOCATE H SUMANAS DTD 25/4/2008 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THANDAPER ACCOUNT SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER AS 8.5 CENTS EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD 24.4.2015 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PRINTED FORMAT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD 7/7/2016.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶28

W.P.(C). NO. 417 OF 2017

¶29

Dated this the 16^th day of March, 2017

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Petitioner had purchased 8.5 cents of property situate in old Survey Nos. 2275/A-2-1 and 2276 of Varkala Village, evident from Ext. P2 title deed. According to the petitioner after purchase, mutation was effected and she was paying tax. Petitioner had availed a loan from the UCO bank by mortgaging the said property. Ext. P5, Thandaper account also shows the extent of property as 8.5 cents. However, when petitioner remitted tax for the year 2015-16, land tax was accepted only for six cents of property, evident from Ext.P6. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted an application before the third respondent, which was considered and passed Ext. P7 order dated 07.07.2016, wherein it is stated that on evaluation there is no difference found in the land belonging to the petitioner. In Ext. P7, petitioner was directed to raise any objection to the said finding, within seven days failing which the applications submitted by the

¶32

W.P.(C). NO. 417 OF 2017 2

¶33

petitioner would stand closed. These are the background facts projected by the petitioner to secure the reliefs sought for in the writ petition.

¶34

A counter affidavit is filed by the Government, refuting the claims and demands raised by the petitioner, details of which are not recited herein in view of the limited nature of order, I propose to pass.

¶35

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and perusing the documents on record and the pleadings put forth, there will be a direction to the third respondent to receive an objection from the petitioner if it is filed, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and consider the same, in accordance with law, within two months thereafter.

¶36

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶37

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶38

DCS

Abitha M.L. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abitha M.L. v. the State of Kerala

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

Dineshan Vs South Indian Bank

C.K.Ajayakumar Vs the State of Kerala

Mary John Vs Village Officer

The Manager, Concord English Higher Secondary School, Chiramanengad Vs Smt.M.S.Jaya, IAS

Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs Sano Jacob

Engineering Project (India) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala