Allowed

Aida Jacob v. the District Collector, Kottayam

Kerala HC7 Feb 2018WP(C)/2383/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, owner of land for which she secured mutation and a building permit, challenged refusal of tax acceptance by the Village Officer. The court held that mutation and Thandaper Number barred rejection and ordered direction to the respondent to investigate and accept the tax.

What did the court decide?

Tax to be accepted from the petitioner pending enquiry by the fourth respondent into the reason for non-receipt.

Aida Jacob Vs the District Collector… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | 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 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 18TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 2383 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

AIDA JACOB, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O. JACOB J. PADIYATH, PADIYATH HOUSE, PERUMPANACHY P.O., MADAPPALLY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM PIN 686 536.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.S.RAJ MOHAN SMT.R.ANJALI SRI.ADITYA THEJUS KRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001.

¶11

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686 001.

¶12

3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DIST. PIN 686 101.

¶13

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MADAPPALLY VILLAGE OFFICE, CHANGANACHERY, PIN 686 546.

¶14

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 2383 of 2018 (W)

¶18

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 3177/1/2012 DATED 03-11-2012 OF THENGANA SUB REGISTRY OFFICE
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, MADAPPALLY DATED 05-03-2016
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MADAPPALLY VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 02-02-2015
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO. A3-970/15 DATED 03-03-2015
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO MR. JACOB J. PADIYATH DATED 21-12-2007

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶27

W.P.(C). No. 2383 OF 2018

¶28

Dated this the 07^th day of February, 2018

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

According to the petitioner, petitioner is the owner in possession of 4.05 ares of land in Survey No. 211/1-3 of Madappally Village, Changanachery Taluk. The property was secured by the petitioner, as per settlement deed executed by her father on 03.11.2012 and she was paying tax from 2012 onwards regularly. Petitioner constructed a multi-storied residential cum commercial building in the said property, after duly obtaining building permit from Madappally Grama Panchayat. However, when the petitioner approached the fourth respondent Village Officer for tendering land tax for the year 2016-17, the same was not accepted. It is thus seeking appropriate directions, this writ petition is filed.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the

¶32

W.P.(C). No. 2383 of 2018 2

¶33

pleadings and the documents on record.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. However, learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the tax is not accepted since there is some mistake with respect to the Survey Number. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

¶35

From Ext.P2 tax receipt, it is evident that property was mutated in the name of the petitioner and a fresh Thandaper Number was assigned. However, on a comparison of Ext.P2 with Ext.P5, a tax receipt showing the receipt of the tax in the name of father of the petitioner, it is evident that no sub division was conducted. However that cannot be a reason for not accepting tax from the petitioner in whose favour the mutation is effected and Thandaper Number is assigned. Therefore, if there is any mistake that will have to be corrected, in accordance with law. Prima facie, I am of

¶36

W.P.(C). No. 2383 of 2018 3

¶37

the considered opinion that the respondents are liable to receive tax from the petitioner.

¶38

Therefore, there will be a direction to the petitioner to submit a representation before the fourth respondent, who will consider and identify the reason for non-receipt of the tax from the petitioner. However, the tax shall be accepted from the petitioner on tendering the same, subject to the enquiry carried out by the fourth respondent pursuant to the representation submitted by the petitioner.

¶39

The writ petition is allowed to the above extent.

¶40

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶41

DCS

¶42

//True Copy//

¶43

P.A. to Judge

Aida Jacob v. the District Collector, Kottayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aida Jacob v. the District Collector, Kottayam

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

V. Rajesh Kumar Vs Sri.a.Hemachandran

A.C.Ashok Kumar Vs P.K.Santhoshakumar

Neena Kora Jacob Vs the District Disaster Management Authority

Lekha Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Kalasakarathi Devaki Vs the Special Tahsildar

E.v.Raju Vs Kerala Water Authority