Dismissed

Ramakrishnan.P v. the District Collector, Kozhikode

Kerala HC4 Sept 2018WP(C)/16541/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's mutation application and land tax request, noting a disputed title involving a temple committee, and ordered both the petitioner and interested parties to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the mutation application and land tax request taking note of documents produced, ensuring all parties are heard.

Ramakrishnan.P Vs the District Collector, Kozhikode — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 13TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 16541 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 RAMAKRISHNAN.P, S/O PARAKANDY CHANDU,

¶8

AGED 57 YEARS, RESDING AT PARAKANDY HOUSE, ATHOLI P.O., KOZHIKODE -673315 BY ADVS. SRI. T.C. SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU

¶9

SRI.A.R.NIMOD

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE - 673001. 2 THE TAHSILDAR, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE -673305

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ATHOLI VILLAGE OFFICE, ATHOLI P.O., KOZHIKODE P.O.-673315 4 THE TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICER, KOYILANDY, KOZHIKODE - 673305

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

BY GOVERNEMNT PLEADER SMT. VINITHA.B

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 16541 of 2018 2

¶17

JUDGEMENT

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following prayers:

¶19

(i) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent to accept the land tax in respect of the properties covered by Ext.P1 purchase certificate which is included in R.S. Nos.81/11, 82/6 and 82/13 of Atholi Village in Koyilandy Taluk, except to the extent which has been sold to third parties;

¶20

(ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to expedite the proceedings including measurement of the properties, if necessary, for accepting land tax towards the property covered by Ext.P1 purchase certificate.

¶21

(iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider on merits Ext.P11 expeditiously after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard;

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶23

Government Pleader.

¶24

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the ground that civil disputes are pending with regard to the property in question, land tax has not been accepted from the petitioner. It is submitted that Exts.P5 and P9 orders would show that the property over which the petitioner's claim title is not involved in any civil suit. The petitioner submits his application for mutation as well as the request for acceptance of land tax is pending before the respondents and are liable to be

¶25

WP(C).No. 16541 of 2018 3

¶26

considered in accordance with law.

¶27

The learned Government Pleader would submit on instructions that there is dispute involving the property of the Kuniyil Theru Sree Maha Ganapathy Kshethra and the Maha Ganapathy Kshethra committee is also an interested party and has to be heard before orders are passed.

¶28

In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on the application preferred for mutation as also the request of the petitioner for payment of land tax taking note of the documents produced by the petitioner as well as Exts.P5 and P9 proceedings. It is made clear that the petitioner and any other interested party shall also be heard before orders are passed as directed above. Orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶29

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

SD/-

rmm

ANU SIVARAMAN

Judge

WP(C).No. 16541 of 2018 4

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE OBTAINED IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 04/02/1977.
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ATHOLI DATED 28/12/1974.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ATHOLI DATED 12/10/1978.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ATHOLI DATED 12/09/2011.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE DATED 22/02/2005.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20/03/2017.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 29/06/2017.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17/04/2017.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10/08/2017.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28/09/2017.
EXHIBIT P11 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:- NIL	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FOR ACCEPTING TAX BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA THROUGH THE 1ST RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 05/04/2017.
	// True copy // P.A. To Judge

Ramakrishnan.P v. the District Collector, Kozhikode

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishnan.P v. the District Collector, Kozhikode

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

Pmr Construction Company Vs the Superintending Engineer

Albin Baby Vs the State of Kerala

Geetha M P Vs the General Manager

Terrance Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

Sindhu Vs State of Kerala

Silpa Projects and Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Thiruvantnhapuram Development Authority (Trida)