Remanded

M.N. Padmini Gopinath v. the District Collector

Kerala HC9 Nov 2018WP(C)/2401/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court remitted a writ petition concerning land tax refusal to the District Collector. Despite prior orders dismissing the case due to pendency of civil proceedings and allegations that the land was in 'puramboke', new documentary evidence was raised. The Court directed a fresh hearing, an internal enquiry into allegations of coercion against a surveyor, and a final decision on surv

What did the court decide?

The matter remitted to the 1st respondent District Collector to reconsider afresh after conducting an inquiry into allegations of intimidation by an officer of at least the rank of Revenue Divisional

M.N. Padmini Gopinath Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018/18TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No.2401 of 2016

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M.N. PADMINI GOPINATH, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.LATE GOPINATH, SANTHINIKETHAN, MURIANADU, CHERTHALA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP SMT.BABY SONIA SMT.NEVIS CASSANDRA L CAXTON LORETTA SRI.BIJISH B.TOM SRI.JACOB TOMLIN VARGHESE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY, COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERTHALA NORTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.

¶13

4 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA.

¶14

5 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

BY SRI.M.R.DHANIL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶17

09.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. ------------------------W.P.(C)No.2401 of 2018

¶19

Dated this the 9^th day of November, 2018

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The prayers in the above Writ Petition

¶22

(Civil) are as follows.

¶23

“

¶24

1. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ or Direction to the 3^rd Respondent to accept the tax for the petitioner's property covered by T.P.No.22367 in Cherthala North Village subject to the finality of the judgment in O.S.453/2011 before the Munsiff's Court, Cherthala.

¶25

1.(a) To issue writ of certiorari call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P1, and for quashing Ext.P1; 1.(b) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application No. S.D.86/07 afresh, and pass orders thereon, within a time period fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

¶26

2. To issue appropriate Writ or Direction to the 5^th Respondent to dispose Exhibit P8 representation after affording ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶27

3. Such other reliefs this Honourable Court deems fit and proper. ”

¶28

W.P.(C).No.2401/2016

¶29

2. Heard Sri.Joy Thattil Ittoop, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.M.R.Dhanil, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶30

3. The petitioner has approached this Court

¶31

in respect to the grievance regarding the refusal on the part of the 3^rd respondent - Village Officer, to accept basic land tax in respect of the petitioner's property covered by T.P.No.22367 in Cherthala North village, Cherthala Taluk, Alappuzha Revenue District. Earlier a suit was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed. The first appeal therefrom has also been dismissed, and the petitioner is proposing to file a regular second appeal therefrom. Earlier this Court had disposed of this Writ Petition holding that, pendency of a civil proceedings is not a ground

¶32

..4..

¶33

W.P.(C).No.2401/2016

¶34

to refuse the acceptance of basic tax from the petitioner, unless civil court has passed any order to the contrary. Accordingly, this Court had rendered a judgment on 2.2.2016 disposing of this Writ Petition, with a direction to the 3^rd respondent Village Officer, to accept basic land tax from the petitioner within one month etc.

¶35

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 2.2.2016 in this Writ Petition, the respondents had filed R.P.No.611 of 2016 for reviewing and recalling the said judgment. The main prayers of the review petition was to the effect that, though the writ petitioner had submitted an application before the survey authorities, for measuring an extent of 2.22 ares and 4.86 ares comprised in Sy.Nos.262/2016 B2 and B5 in Cherthala North Village, Cherthala Taluk, which

¶36

is in the name of the husband of the writ

¶37

W.P.(C).No.2401/2016

¶38

..5..

¶39

petitioner. After receiving the application the Taluk Surveyor had measured the said property and fixed the boundaries, but it was found that the said property is in puramboke, and therefore the 4^th respondent Tahsildar had objected to the said measurement. Contenting that there is no land in that survey number in possession of the writ petitioner, and after inspection by the District Survey Superintendent, the respondents have taken the stand that there is no land comprised in Sy.Nos.262/2016 B2 and B5 in the possession of the legal heirs of the deceased husband of the petitioner. Further it was stated in the said Review Petition that, on measurement there is a total extent of 46.61 ares comprised in Sy.No.262/16B in Cherthala North Village. Out of this 14.05 ares in Cherthala Ernakulam Road, 22.36 ares in the compound of the Karthiyayani

¶40

W.P.(C).No.2401/2016

¶41

..6..

¶42

Devi Temple, 1.38 ares situated in Village Office of Cherthala North, 4.19 ares as puramboke, 4.64 ares as vacant land etc. That on verification of the documents of the Sub Registar's Office, Cherthala dated 15.10.2009, it was in the name of the deceased husband of the petitioner and on verification of the tax receipt, it was found that the scheduled property is lying as temple compound, Cherthala Ernakulam Road and in the Village Office compound, etc. It is on the basis of these factual aspects that the respondents herein has contended in the review petition, that

¶43

the writ petitioner has no right in the said property and that the stand of the revenue officials in refusing to accept land tax from the petitioner is justified, etc, as the petitioner do not have physical possession of the abovesaid

¶44

property etc. Taking note of the factual

¶45

W.P.(C).No.2401/2016

¶46

..7..

¶47

controversy raised by the respondents herein, this Court had passed order dated 11.11.2016 disposing of R.P.No.611 of 2016 (arising out of this Writ Petition), holding that since the land pointed out by the writ petitioner is alleged by

¶48

the revenue authorities as puramboke land, and that the very stand of the respondents herein is that, there is no land is available for the writ petitioner, etc., the matter has to be decided afresh and accordingly had recalled the judgment dated 2.2.2016 in W.P.(C).No.2401 of 2016.

¶49

5. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 10.11.2017 producing therewith Exts.P-10 and P-11 as additional documents. In para 4 of the said affidavit, it is stated that the measurement of the property of the petitioner, pursuant to her application, based on which Ext.P-1 was passed by the 2^nd respondent,was

¶50

W.P.(C).No.2401/2016

¶51

..8..

¶52

carried out by the Taluk Surveyor, Cherthala on 12.5.2009. That in the said measurement based on the revenue list of the 3^rd respondent, property having an extent of 02.22 ares in Sy.No.262/16/B5 and 07.08 ares in Sy.No.262/16/B2 (totaling 17.50 cents) of Cherthala North Village, in the petitioner's name was found, and survey stones were laid. But that the Taluk Surveyor, Cherthala had issued Ext.P-10 letter dated 26.5.2009 to the 2^nd respondent District Survey Superintendent, stating that on 14.5.2009, he (Taluk Surveyor) was threatened and coerced by the Tahsildar and Additional Tahsildar, to remove the said survey stone planted by him, or else he will be suspended immediately, and that he was coerced to remove the survey stones planted marking the boundaries of the petitioner's property, and praying for action against Tahsildar and

¶53

W.P.(C).No.2401/2016

¶54

..9..

¶55

Additional Tahsildar, etc. The 1^st respondent District Collector has recorded an internal note as per Ext.P-11 stating that the grievance raised in Ext.P-10, and recommending action to be taken on Ext.P-10. Thereafter, the petitioner has also filed an additional affidavit dated 16.7.2018, producing therewith additional document as Ext.P-12. In the said additional affidavit it is stated that, during the pendency of the case the petitioner had applied to the 3^rd respondent Village Officer, under the RTI Act, as to whether there is any puramboke property in Sy.No.262/16B

¶56

of Cherthala North Village, and the 3^rd respondent Village Officer by Ext.P-12 letter dated 22.3.2018 has replied that, as per the settlement

¶57

register there is no puramboke property in 262/16B.

¶58

6. In the light of these crucial documents

¶59

W.P.(C).No.2401/2016

¶60

..10..

¶61

produced by the petitioner as per Exts. P-10, P-11 and P-12, this Court is of the considered

¶62

view that the matter requires serious re-consideration at the hands of the 1^st respondent District Collector, more particularly in view of the endorsement made by the 1^st respondent District Collector in Ext.P-11.

¶63

7. Accordingly, the matter will stand

¶64

remitted to the 1^st respondent District Collector, for consideration of the request made by the petitioner afresh. For effectuating such an independent remit, the impugned order at Ext.P-10, rendered by the 2^nd respondent District Survey Superintendent, will stand set aside. The District Collector will call for the entire records in relation to the petitioner's application requesting for, survey and

¶65

measurement of her property and will also advert

¶66

W.P.(C).No.2401/2016

¶67

..11..

¶68

to the materials like Exts.P-10, P-11 and P-12. Since allegations have been made by the Taluk Surveyor in Ext.P-10, as against the Tahsildar and Additional Tahsildar concerned, the 1^st respondent District Collector may conduct an appropriate enquiry through a senior level officer, not below the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer(RDO), to ascertain the correctness of the aspects borne out by Exts.P-10, P-12, etc., and also the aspects borne out by Ext.P-11. The RDO will submit his report in that regard to the 1^st respondent within 6 weeks. The 1^st respondent will ensure that, the copy of the said report is given to the petitioner. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent will hear the petitioner and decide on the request made by the petitioner for survey and measurement of the property. In the abovesaid process, the District Collector will call for the

¶69

W.P.(C).No.2401/2016

¶70

..12..

¶71

application made by the petitioner SD No.86/2007 referred to in Ext-P1, for survey and measurement of the property, and then decide on the request made by the petitioner, for survey and measurement of the property, and if the request is found tenable, necessary steps should be taken to survey and measure the property in accordance with the provisions contained in the Survey and Boundaries Act. The entire process in this regard should be duly completed by the 1^st respondent, within a period of 4 to 5 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶72

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

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

MMG

W.P.(C).No.2401/2016

..13..

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶80

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BY THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT ALAPPUZHA IN E61046/2009 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS.NO.453/2011 BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHERTHALA, DATED 27.03.2013 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LEARNED SUB COURT, CHERTHALA VIDE NO.AS.NO.19/2013 FROM THE JUDGMENT IN OS.NO.453/2011 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION BC.NO.172/67-68 DATED 02.08.1967 ISSUED BY THE CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RENT DEED EXECUTED BY ONE OF THE STREET VENDORS IN THE SAID PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 22.04.2015 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE CHERTHALA NORTH VILLAGE OFFICE VIDE NO.112/2015 DATED 29.07.2015 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 04.01.2015 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 04.01.2016 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.06.2013

¶81

W.P.(C).No.2401/2016

¶82

..14..

¶83

EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF	THE LETTER DATED
	26.5.2009, ISSU SURVEYOR, CHERT RESPONDENT	ED BY THE TALUK HALA, TO THE 2ND
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT, DATED	NOTE MADE BY THE 1ST NIL
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF	THE LETTER DATED
	22.3.2018, ISSU RESPONDENT.	ED BY THE 3RD

M.N. Padmini Gopinath v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.N. Padmini Gopinath 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

Nousha Santhosh @ Nousha Rani Vs Village Officer

P.O. Joseph Vs the Tahsildar

Sakker Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Mohammedali @ Bapputty Vs State of Kerla

St. Antonys Higher Secondary School Vs State of Kerala

Sabeer Vs District Collector