Allowed

P.T. Kunhali Alias Kunhalikkutty v. the Village Officer

Kerala HC5 Nov 2018WP(C)/33013/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, land owners, approached the Court for a direction to the Village Officer to continue accepting basic land tax. The Officer had refused, citing objections by a third party regarding the land being Wakf property. The Court held that pendency of disputes does not bar tax collection absent a specific court order restraining it.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; directed 1st Respondent to continue accepting basic land tax until restrained by a court order.

P.T. Kunhali Alias Kunhalikkutty Vs the Village… — 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

MONDAY,THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No.33013 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 P.T.KUNHALI ALIAS KUNHALIKKUTTY AGED 50 YEARS

¶8

S/O MAHAMMAD, PATTATHODIKA KOLOTH HOUSE, POOKIPARAMBA, THENNALA P O-676511, VALAKKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶9

2 ABDUL SALAM AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMAD KUTTY, THENNALA AMSOM APPALA DESOM, THENNALA.P.O-676511, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

3 SAFIYA.C AGED 39 YEARS, W/O.ABUBAKAR SIDDIQUE, VELLAKKAT HOUSE, CHALILPARA, THENNALA.P.O-676511, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.M.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE VILLAGE OFFICER THENNALA VILLAGE OFFICE, VALAKKULAM P O-676501, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶14

2 THE THAHSILDAR TIRURANGADI TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, TIRURANGADI, KURUKATHANI-KOTTAKKAL ROAD, TIRURANGADI-676306, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

3 KOTT MAHALLU MUSLIM JAMA-ATH COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTT JUMA MASJID, T.S.ROAD, TIRUR-676501, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

SRI.JESTIN MATHEW, GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1 AND R2

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P(C)No.33013 of 2018

¶20

¶21

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. =============================

¶22

W.P(C)No.33013 of 2018

¶23

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

¶24

Dated this the 5^th day of November, 2018

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The prayers in the aforecaptioned Writ

¶27

Petition (Civil) are as follows:

¶28

“I. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction to direct the 1^st respondent to continue to accept basic tax from the petitioners as was being done previously and referable to Exhibit-P 3-A, Exhibit P4-A & Exhibit P5-A unless and until prohibited by a judicial order.

¶29

And,

¶30

issue each other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.”

¶31

2. Heard Sri.M.Krishna Kumar, learned counsel

¶32

appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Jestin

¶33

Mathew, learned Government Pleader appearing for

¶34

official respondents 1 & 2. In the nature of the

¶35

orders proposed to be passed in this Writ Petition, notice to contesting respondent No.3 will stand dispensed with.

¶36

W.P(C)No.33013 of 2018

¶37

¶38

3. The petitioners’ state that they are “Land holders” as defined under Sec.3(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and that the three petitioners herein owned 23, 6.5 & 12 cents of lands, which are portions of the larger extent scheduled to Ext.P-1 Purchase Certificate issued in the year 1990 by the

¶39

Land Tribunal, Parappanangadi. That thereafter, mutations have also been duly carried out by the predecessors in the interest of the petitioners and

¶40

the petitioners have been regularly paying basic land tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. That each of the petitioners have also separately built residential houses in these small parts of the land and has been living there undisturbed for quite a long number of years, it is stated. The copies of the property tax receipts accepted from the petitioners are produced as documents as in Exts.P-3(a), P-4(a), P-5(a) respectively and copies of the building property tax receipts issued by the

¶41

local authority concerned in respect of the petitioners have been produced as Exts.P-3(b),

¶42

W.P(C)No.33013 of 2018

¶43

¶44

P-4(b), P-5(b), etc. and the Ownership Certificates of the buildings concerned constructed on those

¶45

properties have been produced as Exts.P-3(c), P-4(c) etc. The complaint of the petitioners is that the 1^st respondent-Village Officer has refused to accept basic land tax, in respect of the above properties from the petitioners and thereupon, the petitioners had made enquiries by filing requests under the Right to Information Act to elicit the ground of rejection and in reply under the RTI proceedings, the 1^st respondent has now informed as per Ext.P-6 letter dated 14.08.2018 that the 3^rd respondent-Jama-Ath Committee has raised a complaint before the Kerala State Wakf Board that they have now discovered that the properties belonging to the petitioners as well as the entire land (2.60 acres), scheduled in Ext.P-1 Purchase Certificate is included in the deed of Wakf

¶46

executed in the year 1919 and therefore, it is Wakf property etc. Further, enquiries of the

¶47

petitioners have also revealed that in the

¶48

W.P(C)No.33013 of 2018

¶49

¶50

proceedings before the Kerala State Wakf Board, the 3^rd respondent (Committee) was instructed to move the Appellate Authority under Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 to challenge Ext.P-1 Purchase Certificate, if they so desire and on that basis

¶51

the 3^rd respondent has filed Ext.P-7 appeal application, which has now been numbered as A.A.No.67/2018 to challenge the impugned Ext.P-1 Purchase Certificate issued on 1990, after delay of more than 27 years.

¶52

4. According to the petitioners, to the best of their knowledge, no orders had been passed by the Appellate Authority on Ext.P-7 appeal and also as to whether the 3^rd respondent has filed any application to condone the long delay in filing the appeal and whether any orders have been passed on

¶53

such delay condonation application, etc. The petitioners would contend that as long as no judicial Forum has passed the orders interdicting

¶54

the competent revenue officials like the 1^st respondent-Village Officer from accepting the

¶55

¶56

¶57

basic land tax from the petitioners’ property, the 1^st respondent has no jurisdiction to unilaterally refuse to accept the basic land tax, on the ground that disputes have been raised by the 3^rd respondent with the Wakf Board and before the Appellate Authority concerned. It is in the light of these factual aspects, the petitioners have filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the aforementioned prayers.

¶58

5. It has been held by this Court in various decisions as in Sudan.K.K & others v. State of Kerala & others reported in 2013(4)KLT 563 = 2013(4)KHC 201 that mere pendency of civil litigative proceedings etc. can never be a bar with regard to the acceptance of basic land tax unless the competent revenue officials concerned had been restrained in such litigative proceedings from accepting tax by virtue of any order passed by any competent court, etc. It is pertinent to refer to para.4 of the abovesaid judgment of this Court in Sudan.K.K & others v. State of Kerala & others

¶59

¶60

¶61

reported in 2013(4)KHC 201, which reads as follows:

¶62

“4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that tax was not accepted only because of the complaints preferred by the parties to the Civil Court. But the fact remains that the matter has become final by virtue of Exts.P2 and P3 and as such, there is no rationale on the part of the respondents in refusing to accept the land tax from the first petitioner. Even otherwise, pendency of civil suit can ever be a bar with regard to the acceptance of land tax, unless specifically restrianed from accepting the tax by virtue of any order passed by the Court. This aspect has already been dealt with by this Court while passing judgment in WP(C)No.10771 of 2013.

¶63

In the said circumstances, this Court finds that the petitoner are entitled to succeed. There will be a direction to the respondents to accept the land tax in respect of Ext.P1 property from the first petitioner as and when the same is surrendered. It is also made clear that, if the party, who lost the battle before the Civil Court vide Exts. P2 and P3, has preferred any further proceedings by way of second appeal or otherwise, the acceptance of tax from the first petitioner as above. Will not a bar to pursue such proceedings in accordance with law and it shall be subject ot the outocme of such litigation.”

¶64

6. Accordingly, it is ordered that so long as

¶65

no orders of competent court are received by the 1^st respondent interdicting him from accepting basic land tax in respect of the properties of the petitioners covered by Ext.P-1 and the other documents mentioned hereinabove, he has to continue

¶66

¶67

¶68

to accept basic land tax from the petitioners in respect of the abovesaid properties. The Registry will forward a copy of this judgment to R-3, for necessary information. Office of the Advocate General will forward certified copy of this judgment to respondents 1 & 2. The petitioners may also produce the copies of this judgment before respondents 1 & 2, for necessary information and further action.

¶69

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

¶70

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

vgd/07.11.18

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶76

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DATED 09/01/1990.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26/03/1991 IN O.S.253/1989 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PARAPPANANGADI.
EXHIBIT P3 A	TRUE COPY OF THE BT RECEIPT DATED 12/07/2017.
EXHIBIT P3 B	TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 23/07/2018.
EXHIBIT P3 C	TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATE 23/07/2018.
EXHIBIT P4 A	TRUE COPY OF THE BT RECEIPT DATED 17/08/2017.
EXHIBIT P4 B	TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 04/04/2016.
EXHIBIT P4 C	TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 18/09/2018.
EXHIBIT P5 A	TRUE COPY OF THE BT RECEIPT DATED 14/06/2016.
EXHIBIT P5 B	TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14/08/2018 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THENNALA.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL
	A.A.NO.67/2018 PENDING BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY(LR), THRISSUR.

P.T. Kunhali Alias Kunhalikkutty v. the Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.T. Kunhali Alias Kunhalikkutty v. the Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayee Bhava Properties Ltd. Vs M/S.Vaokundam Rubbers Company

Sujatha Purushan Vs the District Collector

M/S. Fibre Glass Techniques Company Vs District Collector

C.R. Sudhakaran Vs Union of India

Thomas Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

K.N. Chandran, Vs Land Revenue Commissioner