Disposed

Vazhakkad Valiya Juma Masjid v. the District Collector

Kerala HC3 Jan 2018WP(C)/2259/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the District Collector's decision to accept land tax from the Wakf without notifying the mosque violated procedural fairness mandated by a previous judgment under Article 226. The Court directed the Tahsildar to hear both parties and decide within two months, allowing tax receipt from the Wakf to continue pending the final decision.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to receive representations from both parties, hear them, and take a final decision on the tax matter within two months.

Vazhakkad Valiya Juma Masjid Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 13TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

W.P(C).No.2259 of 2017

¶6

----------------------

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

VAZHAKKAD VALIYA JUMA MASJID REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, T.P.ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.T.P.ABDULLAKUTTY, VAZHAKKAD, KONDOTTY TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.BABU S. NAIR SMITHA BABU

¶10

RESPONDENTS

¶11

----------1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶12

2. THE TAHSILDAR, KONDOTTY TALUK, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 638.

¶13

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKAD VILLAGE, VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 640.

¶14

4. DARUL ULOOM WAKF REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DARUL ULOOM ASSOCIATION, K.P.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O. LATE K.P.C AHAMMEDKUTTY, VAZHAKKAD, KONDOTTY TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673 640.

¶15

5. THE KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, V.I.P ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017.

¶16

R1-R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER : SRI.SANTHOSH PETER R4 BY ADV.GOKUL DAS V.V.H.

¶17

R5 BY ADV.T.P.SAJID, SC, KERALA STATE WAQF BOARD

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-01-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P(C).No. 2259 of 2017 (F)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶22

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 17.11.2004 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25.04.2014.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 157/2014 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI DATED 07.03.2014.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI IN O.S. NO. 157/2014 DATED 24.07.2014.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.10.2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.31984/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 01.07.2012.
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 02.12.2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKAD DATED 08.12.1997.
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKAD DATED 07.12.1996.
EXT.P10	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKAD DATED 07.03.1995.
EXT.P11	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKAD DATED 14.03.1996.
EXT.P12	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.S. NO.157/2014 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT DATED 08.06.2017.

¶23

-2-

¶24

W.P(C).No. 2259 of 2017 (F)

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶26

EXT.R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. EXT.R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE RESURVEY AND AND RESETTLEMENT REGISTER PERTAINING TO AMSOM NO.9, KARUMAKKAD, ERNAD TALUK IN ERSTWHILE MALABAR DISTRICT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

bpr

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶31

W.P.(C) No.2259 of 2017

¶32

Dated this the 3^rd day of January, 2018

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the

¶35

following reliefs :

¶36

i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the respondents 1 to 3, not to accept basic land tax in respect of properties comprised in Block No.19, R.S. No.5/1 of the Vazhakkad Village from the 4^th respondent;

¶37

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the 2^nd respondent to adjudicate the matter under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, in respect of the payment of basic tax for the properties comprised in R.S. No.5/1 in Block No.19 of the Vazhakkad Village;

¶38

iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶39

The material facts or the disposal of the writ

¶40

petition are as follows :

¶41

W.P.(C) No.2259 of 2017

¶42

-2-

¶43

Petitioner, a mosque has 3.6440 Hectares of properties. Petitioner was paying land tax in respect of the properties for various periods and Ext.P1 is a land tax receipt issued on 17.11.2004 in respect of the properties belonging to the petitioner and Ext.P2 is the certificate issued by the third respondent. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent has no right over the said properties as the properties are absolutely belonging to the mosque and the same is being used as a burial ground of the mosque for more than 100 years. While so, the fourth respondent had paid land tax in respect of the properties for the period 2011-12, which according to the petitioner, in a clandestine manner and had raised a claim in respect of the properties of the mosque. Subsequently, the fourth respondent had filed Ext.P3 suit before the Munsiff Court, Manjeri in which the petitioner is the first defendant. The prayer in the suit is mainly for accepting basic land tax

¶44

W.P.(C) No.2259 of 2017 -3-

¶45

from the fourth respondent. The petitioner appeared in the suit and filed Ext.P4 written statement stating that even the suit is not maintainable before the Munsiff Court and the WAFK Tribunal alone has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Thereafter, the fifth respondent had approached this Court by filing a writ petition and had secured Ext.P5 judgment wherein this Court directed the 4^th respondent to make a suitable representation before the Statutory Authority and the Statutory Authority was directed to take a final decision in the matter, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the fourth respondent herein, and other contesting parties in the writ petition. The petitioner herein, was the second respondent. According to the petitioner, the Statutory Authority did not take a decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner as directed in the judgment. However, started receiving tax from the petitioner for the properties in question. It is

¶46

W.P.(C) No.2259 of 2017

¶47

-4-

¶48

thus challenging the said action of the third respondent Village Officer, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner.

¶49

A counter affidavit has been filed for and on behalf

¶50

of respondents 1 to 3 refuting the allegations, claims and demands raised by the petitioner. According to the said respondents, even though, the petitioner herein, was a party in the writ petition did not approach the respondents or made any representation seeking opportunity of hearing or submitted any objection in accepting tax from the fourth respondent as permitted by this Court. Even though, liberty was granted, the petitioner did not approach the Statutory Authority to highlight any grievances on the part of the petitioner and it was, thereupon, the tax was being received from the fourth respondent herein. The fourth respondent has also filed a counter affidavit almost in similar lines, and also contended that the fourth respondent is the title holder of the properties in whose

¶51

W.P.(C) No.2259 of 2017 -5-

¶52

name the land is situated and therefore, the fourth respondent is the person entitled to pay tax to the properties in question.

¶53

Anyhow, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner

¶54

was not heard before any decision was taken to accept land tax from the fourth respondent.

¶55

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶56

petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶57

The summary of fact discussion would make it

¶58

clear that even though in Ext.P5 judgment, direction was issued by this Court to take a decision in the matter of receipt of land tax after receiving a representation from the fourth respondent herein and hearing all interested parties, such a cause of action was not undertaken. The petitioner was also a party in the said writ petition.

¶59

W.P.(C) No.2259 of 2017

¶60

-6-

¶61

However, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was not issued with any notice on receipt of the representation from the fourth respondent herein. On that sole ground alone, the decision taken by the third respondent to accept tax from the fourth respondent cannot be legally sustained, especially since Ext.P5 has become final and a specific direction was issued to issue notice to all concerned before taking a final decision. Therefore, the decision to accept tax from the fourth respondent becomes arbitrary and illegal justifying interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I direct the second respondent to receive representations from the petitioner and the fourth respondent, and if any representation is submitted within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent and take a

¶62

W.P.(C) No.2259 of 2017

¶63

-7-

¶64

final decision at the earliest possible time, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I make it clear that the receipt of tax by the third respondent from the fourth respondent will not stand in the way of deciding the issue in a fair, proper and transparent manner.

¶65

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶68

bpr

¶69

//TRUE COPY//

¶70

P.A. TO JUDGE

Vazhakkad Valiya Juma Masjid v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vazhakkad Valiya Juma Masjid v. the District Collector

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

Gopi.K.v Vs Reserve Bank of India

Seguro Foundations and Structures Private Limited Vs the State of Kerala

Nelson.P Vs Authorised Officer, State Bank of India

T.N.Udayablan Vs State of Kerala

M.P. Jolly Vs the District Cllector

Adimaly Labour Contract Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs State of Kerala