Disposed

Abdul Rehman v. the District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Painavu

Kerala HC13 Nov 2018WP(C)/17235/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition involved a petitioner claiming ownership of land via a pattayam, facing denial of mutation and land tax acceptance by revenue authorities who alleged the document was bogus. The Court directed authorities to consider the mutation request and accept land tax, reiterating that such decisions require due process and do not vest title.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents 3 and 4 to consider the mutation request and accept basic land tax, subject to due process and potential future cancellation proceedings.

Abdul Rehman Vs the District Collector, Office of the… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1940 WP(C).No. 17235 of 2018

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

ABDUL REHMAN

¶7

S/O SULAIMAN, AGED 49 YEARS, KARANKATTIL HOUSE, LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, MUNNAR P.O., KANNAN DEVAN HILLS, IDUKKI DISTRICT, KERALA- 685 612

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) SRI.S.KRISHNANKUTTY

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PAINAVU IDUKKI- 685 603

¶11

2 TEH SUB COLLECTOR DEVIKULAM P.O., DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT- 685 613

¶12

3 THE TAHSILDAR DEVIKULAM TALUK,PIN- 685 613

¶13

4 VILLAGE OFFICER K.D.H VILLAGE OFFICE, MUNNAR P.O., DEVIKULAM- 685 612

¶14

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P(C)No.17235 of 2018

¶17

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶19

=============================

¶20

W.P(C)No.17235 of 2018

¶21

=============================

¶22

Dated this the 13^th day of November, 2018

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil)

¶25

are as follows:

¶26

(i) issue a writ of mandamus or order directing the 3^rd and 4^th respondents to accept the Land tax of the property covered by Exhibit P-1, from the petitioner and to make necessary changes in the Thandaper Register regarding the ownership of the petitioner, in respect of the said property for the ends of Justice.

¶27

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order, directing the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents to issue orders, directing the 4^th Respondent to accept the land tax in respect of the property covered by Exhibit P-1 pattayam

¶28

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order, directing the 3^rd Respondent to conduct proper survey and issue proper pattayam to the petitioner, considering the possession and enjoyment of Laksham Veedu in a colony established for the said purpose.

¶29

And

¶30

(iii) To grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts of the case.”

¶31

W.P(C)No.17235 of 2018

¶32

¶33

2. Heard Sri.John Joseph (Roy), learned

¶34

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Sr.Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶35

3. The petitioner is a permanent resident of Laksham Veedu Colony in Kannan Devan Hills Village, Munnar for the last more than 35 years and he claims to be the absolute owner and title holder of 4 cents of landed property having an extent of 1.62 Ares comprised in survey No.912/part of K.D.H Village, which he obtained as

¶36

per Ext.P-1 pattayam. According to the petitioner, Ext.P1 pattayam was issued after proper enquiry and on the basis of physical verification on the possession and the documents

¶37

produced before the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar. Further that, the Munnar Grama Panchayath had assessed the building in the abovesaid property and had charged building tax for which the petitioner has also paid building tax as per

¶38

W.P(C)No.17235 of 2018

¶39

¶40

Ext.P-2 etc. The petitioner has been given Ration Card as per Ext.P-3, Aadhar Card as per Ext.P-4 and other records, gas connection etc., by showing the address in respect of the abovesaid residential building constructed in the abovesaid property covered by Ext.P-1 pattayam.

¶41

4. Further, it is stated that the residence of the petitioner in the Laksham Veedu colony is surrounded by houses in the Lakshma Veedu of other persons like Sri.Moses on the North, Smt.Lekshmi on the West, Sri.Raja on the South and a pathway on the East and the residence of Sri.Poovayya on the East of the pathway. Ext.P-5 pattayam was issued by the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar to the abovesaid Sri.R.K.Swamy in the same colony and mutation of the said property was granted in his favour and he has been remitting basic land tax as per Ext.P-6 in his name, as evident from Exts.P-5 & P-6. Likewise, it is also stated that Ext.P-7 pattayam was issued to the western boundary holder Smt.Lekshmi as per Ext.P-7 and she is also

¶42

W.P(C)No.17235 of 2018

¶43

¶44

remitting basic land tax in her name as mutation of the property has already been granted in her name.

¶45

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been running for pillar to post for effecting mutation of his property covered by Ext.P-1 and to pay basic land tax in his name, since land tax receipt is essential.

¶46

6. The petitioner has submitted various applications as in Ext.P-8 petition dated 06.01.2018, for effecting mutation in respect of the abovesaid property and the said application has been submitted before the 4^th respondentVillage Officer. Inspite of various assurances, no effective action is forthcoming from the respondents, more particularly respondents 3 & 4.

¶47

It is in the light of these aspects, the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the aforementioned prayers.

¶48

7. The learned Government Pleader has now filed a statement in the above case, wherein it is

¶49

W.P(C)No.17235 of 2018

¶50

¶51

stated that on examination of the pattayam (Ext.P-1), it is seen that there is no entry in the patta regarding the register of K.D.H Village (survey No.912), regarding the name of the petitioner and from this it appears that Ext.P-1

¶52

patta is a bogus document etc. To a specific query raised by this Court, as to whether any action has till date been taken in respect of the issuance of Ext.P-1 pattayam as against the petitioner, the learned Sr.Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the available instructions furnished to him suggests that no such action has so far been taken by the competent authority concerned.

¶53

8. Sri.John Joseph (Roy), learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit and assert on the basis of instructions of his party that Ext.P-5 pattayam issued to Sri.R.K.Swamy is identical and similar to Ext.P-5 pattayam issued to the petitioner and in Ext.P-5 also no pattayam (L.A.No.) is shown therein and parties like the

¶54

¶55

¶56

petitioner cannot be faulted for the lacuna and

¶57

omission on the part of the competent revenue officials in properly drawing up the pattayam, during the finalisation of the assignment proceedings. From the pleadings and materials on record, it is seen that these 2-3 neighbours of the petitioner have already been granted similar pattayams are permitted to pay basic land tax. It is to be noted that right to

¶58

pay basic land tax as per the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Tax Act is also one of the components of the right to enjoy the proprietary right and so as proprietary right is guaranteed under Art.300A of the Constitution of India, the said right to pay basic land tax is also part and parcel of the said right enshrined

¶59

in Art.300A, which can deprived only in accordance with the due procedure prescribed by law.

¶60

9. Moreover, it is seen that till date no competent courts have issued any order

¶61

¶62

¶63

interdicting the acceptance of basic land tax in respect of the petitioner’s property. Taking note of all these aspects, it is ordered that the competent authority among respondents 3 & 4 will take up the request made by the petitioner for grant of mutation in Ext.P-8 application and will grant the same, if it is otherwise in order. It is made clear that the request of the petitioner for grant of mutation and for acceptance of basic land tax cannot be rejected on the ground that the respondents apprehend that Ext.P-1 pattayam is bogus as there is no entry in the patta regarding the register of K.D.H Village (survey No.912), as stated in the above referred statement. Orders in this regard should be duly passed by the competent authority among respondents 3 & 4, within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. It is made clear that the grant of mutation in respect of the petitioner’s property

¶64

¶65

¶66

covered by Ext.P-1 pattayam and the acceptance of basic land tax will be subject to any proceedings that may be initiated by the competent authority among respondents, for any proposed measures like the cancellation of the pattayam, if there are cogent grounds warranting and justifying the said action and any such action could be taken only after following and adhering to the rigor of the due process of law.

¶67

10. It is also made clear that mere grant of mutation and acceptance of basic land tax by itself will not enable the petitioner to claim title over the property in question, which he will have to establish independently of the same, if it is required to be so established in any appropriate proceedings.

¶68

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶69

Sd/-

¶70

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

vgd/15.11.18

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶76

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTAYAM ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 09-082016 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 06-06-2017 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTAYAM ISSUED TO SRI.R.K.SWAMY BY THE SAME TAHSILDAR EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO SRI.R.K.SWAMY DATED 19-042016 BY KDH VILLAGE EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTAYAM ISSUED TO SMT.LAKSHMY IN THE SAME COLONY EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 0601-2018 ENDORSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 19-01-2018 TO DY.TAHSILDAR EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FROM DY.TAHSILDAR TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30-01-2018 EXHIBITP11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09-052018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

Abdul Rehman v. the District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Painavu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rehman v. the District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Painavu

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

Haneefa Rawther Vs the District Collector, Collectorate, Pathanamthitta

Ramakrishnan Vs the District Collector

Rajan Rawther Vs State of Kerala

Charles K. Thomas Vs District Collector, Idukki

Kunjumuhammed Vs State of Kerala

Renjith Rajan Vs the District Collector Ernakulam