Allowed

Ramakrishna Gupthan v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC12 Dec 2018WP(C)/34339/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned disputes over land tax payments and ownership records. The court held that under the Kerala Land Tax Act, the petitioner qualifies as the 'land holder' to pay tax, though this does not determine title. The Village Officer was directed to update the Basic Tax Register to reflect the petitioner's ownership validly established by a final court decree.

What did the court decide?

The Village Officer directed to accept basic land tax and make necessary corrections in the Basic Tax Register within two weeks to reflect the petitioner's name.

Ramakrishna Gupthan Vs Revenue Divisional Officer — 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

WEDNESDAY,THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 34339 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

RAMAKRISHNA GUPTHAN AGED 72 YEARS S/O. RAMAN MOOTHAN, CHINGATH HOUSE, SOWPARNIKA, MANNAMPATTA, PALAKKAD - 678 633

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SMT.C.K.SHERIN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

¶11

OTTAPALAM - 679 101, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶12

2 TAHSILDAR OFFICE OF THE TALUK TAHSILDAR,OTTAPALAM,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PIN-679101.

¶13

3 VILLAGE OFFICER SREEKRISHNAPURAM I VILLAGE,SREEKRISHNAPURAM,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PIN-679513.

¶14

4 ADDL. R4 UNNIKUTTAN S/O. LATE KUNHIMMALU AMMAL, AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT 8/C1, NGO QUARTERS, CN PURAM, PALAKKAD 678 005.

¶15

ADDITIONAL R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12-12-2018 IN I.A. 4/2018.

¶16

BY ADVS.

¶17

SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.P.S.APPU

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1 TO R3, SRI.P.S.APPU FOR ADDL.R4

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.(C)No.34339/2018

¶22

¶23

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶24

¶25

W.P.(C)No.34339 OF 2018

¶26

¶27

Dated this the 12^th day of December, 2018

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows :

¶30

(i ) issue a writ or mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to make corrections in the Basic Tax Register by deleting 11.30 ares of property shown against the name of the mother of the petitioner and adding the same against the petitioner and receive basic tax concerning 2.32 acres of properties in Survey Nos. 82/7 and 82/1 ( old Survey No.86/12) of Sreekrishnapuram I Village from the petitioner ;

¶31

ii) Issue such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the cases.”

¶32

Heard Sri.Santheep Ankarath, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader for official respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.P.S.Appu, the learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶33

The petitioner claims to be the title holder having ownership and

¶34

enjoyment of 2 Acres and 3 cents of landed property in Sy. Nos. 82/7 and 82/1 of Sreekrishnapuram I Village ( old survey No.86/12), Ottappalam Taluk, Palakkad Revenue District. Consequent to the death of the petitioner's father, mother and sisters of the petitioner had preferred the original suit as

¶35

W.P.(C)No.34339/2018 3 O.S.No.41/1991 before the Sub Court, Ottappalam seeking partition of the entire properties held by the deceased father. In the said suit all the other legal heirs of the deceased father had joined as plaintiffs and the petitioner herein was the sole defendant therein. It is stated that after elaborate consideration of evidence, the Sub Court, Ottappalam as per decree and judgment dated 12.12.1995 had dismissed the said suit for partition. The petitioner would point out that it was found by the trial court therein that the plaint schedule properties are not partible and that the petitioner is entitled to the full extent of property on the basis of adverse possession and ouster. Ext.P1 is the decree dated 12.12.1995 in O.S.No.41/1991 rendered by the Sub Court, Ottappalam. It is further stated that Ext.P1 decree rendered on 12.12.1995 in the said suit has become final and conclusive and that the plaintiffs in the said suit have not challenged the said judgment and decree in the original suit through the due procedure of appellate process as envisaged in the Civil Procedure Code. The petitioner would therefore point out that he is the sole owner of the property in question. Further, the petitioner had obtained purchase certificate for the property as per Ext.P2 dated 31.1.1977 issued by the Land Tribunal, Thrissur. But the extent of land shown in Ext.P2 purchase certificate is only 1 Acre 69 cents even though the petitioner's case is that a total extent of 2 acres and 32 cents is in his ownership and possession. The petitioner would point out that

¶36

W.P.(C)No.34339/2018

¶37

¶38

the reduced extent of land shown in Ext.P2 is on account of some mistake that

¶39

had crept in the decision making process leading to the issuance of Ext.P5. At the time of resurvey of property the revenue authorities sub divided 11.30 Ares separately and shown in the revenue records against the name of the petitioner's mother and only the balance extent of 1 acre 69 cents covered by Ext.P2 was shown in the petitioner's name. Ext.P7 entry in the basic tax register would show that an extent of 82.20 Ares ( 2.03 acres) is in the name of the petitioner and Ext.P8 entry in the BTR would show that an extent of 11.30 Ares ( 27.92 cents) is shown in the name of the petitioner's mother. However the petitioner would point out that his mother died in the year 1985 and the above said entry in the basic tax register showing that the said extent of 11.30 ares ( 27.9 cents) is in the name of the petitioner's mother has been so endorsed by respondent No.3 only after the death of the mother.

¶40

The petitioner had submitted application before the resurvey Superintendent, Palakkad praying for correction of the resurvey records so as to ensure that the total extent of 2.32 acres is shown in the name of the petitioner. In that regard Ext.P4 notice dated 6.2.2016 was issued by the said authority. The 3^rd respondent has been accepting basic tax register from the petitioner in respect of the property covered by Ext.P7 for an extent of 82.20 Ares ( 2.03 acres) as evident from Exts.P5 and P6. Incidentally, it is also relevant to note

¶41

W.P.(C)No.34339/2018

¶42

¶43

that the petitioner had sold a portion of the above said land covered by Ext.P8 to his son and an extent of 0.0566 Ares as per Ext.P5 is shown in the name of the petitioner's son and an extent of 0.7571 Ares is shown in the name of the petitioner. The total extent of land covered by Exts.P5 and P6 land tax receipts would come to 81.37 Ares.

¶44

According to the petitioner, no effective action was forth coming on the request made by the petitioner before the official respondents for correction of the mistake in the resurvey records as shown in Exts.P7 and P8. Pursuant to the direction issued in Ext.P11 dated 8.7.2017 issued by the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar, the petitioner had appeared before the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar and the 3^rd respondent village officer and had produced records concerning the property including Ext.P3 patta chit in the name of the petitioner's father, Ext.P1 judgment and decree and Ext.P7 basic tax receipt upto 2014-2015. The petitioner has raised an allegation that the 3^rd respondent had demanded huge amount as bribe from the petitioner for the purpose of taking further action for receiving land tax and mutating the records in respect of the entire extent of property and that the petitioner had refused the illegal demand made by the 3^rd respondent and thereafter he had even complained to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, Palakkad District about the illegal demand stated to have been made by the 3^rd respondent village officer. It

¶45

W.P.(C)No.34339/2018

¶46

¶47

is the case of the petitioner that this has infuriated the 3^rd respondent village officer and that he has taken an hostile attitude against the petitioner ever since then. Ultimately by Ext.P14 proceedings dated 8.5.2018 the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar had directed that the balance extent of 11.30 hectars ( 27.92 cents) shown in the name of the petitioner's mother be corrected and may be shown as held by all the children of the deceased parents. According to the petitioner, this was a mistake committed by the 2^nd respondent in Ext.P7 in as much as the petitioner alone had the sole right over the said property and that so the action in showing the names of all the children of the deceased father in the BTR was wrong. Thereupon the petitioner had filed Ext.P15 petition dated 26.5.2018 before the 2^nd respondent seeking review of the decision in Ext.P14, that thereafter the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar has issued Ext.P16 proceedings dated 5.6.2018 wherein it is observed that the second portion of Ext.P14 may be corrected and that the revenue records may be corrected by deleting the name of the mother of the petitioner with regard to the above said 11.30 Ares ( 27.92 cents) of property should also be shown in the name of the petitioner etc. .That inspite of the directions issued by the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar in Ext.P16 the 3^rd respondent village offficer who is the subordinate of the 2^nd respondent village officer has refused to comply with the said direction by issuing Ext.P17 letter dated 21.6.2018 stating that there is no clarity in Ext.P16 and even suggested

¶48

W.P.(C)No.34339/2018

¶49

¶50

that the matter may have to be reported to the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Burea, it is stated. Thereupon the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar has issued Ext.P18 letter dated 30.06.2018 making it clear that he will be forced to initiate action against the 3^rd respondent for insubordination, that inspite of the specific direction issued by 2^nd respondent as per Ext.P15 and P18, the 3^rd respondent has taken a hostile attitude and had refused to comply with the said directions of the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner would even allege that the 3^rd respondent village officer in order to wreck the vengeance on the petitioner has instigated the other legal heirs of the parents to file Ext.P21 original suit O.S.No.323/2018 before the Munsiff's Court, Ottappalam. Ext.P21 suit is filed by the 4^th respondent who is the legal heir of one of the deceased sister of the petitioner and the prayer in Ext.P21 suit is also for partition. Later the third respondent has taken the stand in Ext.P19 letter dated 21/07/2018 that the plaintiff in Ext.P21 suit submitted a complaint and that the dispute can be resolved only after he obtains further orders from the 2^nd respondent.

¶51

Ext.P20 is the complaint in that regard stated to have been submitted by the plaintiffs in Ext.P1 suit. It is brought to the notice of this court that the contesting respondent No.4 is not one of the plaintiffs in Ext.P21. The petitioner would state that he is urgently in need of latest land tax receipt for the entire extent of 2.23 acres as he has to produce the same before the Land

¶52

W.P.(C)No.34339/2018

¶53

¶54

Tribunal as he has sought for issuance of purchase certificate for the balance land over and above 1.69 acres of property shown in Ext.P2 purchase certificate.

¶55

The 3^rd respondent Tahsildar has filed an affidavit dated 22.11.2018 and an additional affidavit dated 27.11.2018. In the affidavit dated 22.11.2018, the 3^rd respondent has attempted to justify his action in not complying with the direction issued by the 2^nd respondent in Exts.P16 and P18. However, later the third respondent has now filed an additional affidavit dated 27.11.2018 wherein he has stated that he has complied with the direction issued by the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar and has accepted basic land tax from the petitioner as is seen as per Annexures R3(a) and R3(b) receipts. Annexure R3(a) is a land tax receipt dated 24.11.2018 wherein it is stated that land tax is accepted from the petitioner for an extent of 87.84 Ares of land in Sy.No.82/7 and 82/1. Annexure R3(b) is the copy of land tax receipt dated 24.11.2018 wherein it is shown that land tax has been accepted from the petitioner's son for an extent of 0.566 Ares comprised in Sy.No.82/7. The total extent of land covered by Annexure R3(a) and R3(b) would come to 0.9350 Hectars/93.5 Ares ( 2.23 Acres).

¶56

Sri.P.S.Appu, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.4 has now filed Ext.P21 original suit as the sole plaintiff before the Civil Court concerned seeking partition, wherein all the other legal heirs of the

¶57

W.P.(C)No.34339/2018

¶58

¶59

deceased father of the petitioner have been arrayed as defendants therein and the relief sought for therein is for partition of the properties of the entire extent of properties of the deceased father of the petitioner.

¶60

The 4^th respondent has filed an affidavit along with I.A.No.4/2018 and paragraphs 2 to 4 of the said affidavit reads as follows :

¶61

“2. The above writ petition was filed seeking direction to the Village Officer to accept basic tax in respect of the property in Sy.Nos.82/7 and 82/1 of Sreekrishnapuram I Villlage after effecting necessary corrections in the basic tax register. The petitioner is one of the co-owners of the aforesaid property claiming under late Raman Moothan and his daughter late Kunhimmalu Ammal. Admittedly, the property was obtained by later Raman Moothan by way of a 'patta chit' executed as early in the year 1934. A total extent of 2.64 acres of property were taken possession by late Raman Moothan vide above document.

¶62

Late Kunjikutty Ammal, widow of late Raman Moothan got 11.30 Ares of property in Sy.No.86/12 ( New Sy.No.82/1) of Sreekrishnapuram I Village. This property lies adjoining the property of late Raman Moothan and the said property is not involved in any litigation as pointed out in Ext.P1. The writ petitioner cannot claim exclusive right over any of the properties as mentioned in Ext.P1 as it was obtained behind the back of the petitioner and is therefore unsustainable. Ext.P2 purchase certificate obtained in the name of the 1^st respondent/petitioner can only be considered to be one which ensure to the benefit of the family as stated in Viswambharan v. Sanu ( 2018 (2) KLT 947 FB).

¶63

W.P.(C)No.34339/2018

¶64

¶65

The entire extent of the property was managed by the family consisting of the petitioner as well as the 1^st respondent/petitioner as a joint family property and the writ petitioner is trying to grab the property in a clandestine manner and his claim over the property is unsustainable. The petitioner and other family members will be put to irreparable injury and considerable hardship, if the writ petition is allowed on the basis of this fraudulent claim. I am deeply interested in the outcome of the proceedings and would be vitally affected by the verdict rendered in the above writ petition.”

¶66

Now it is indisputable fact that official respondents more particularly the 3^rd respondent has now accepted land tax from the petitioner as per Annexure R3(a) and R3(b) receipts dated 24.11.2018, wherein land tax has been accepted for the entire extent of 2.23 acres (93.50 Ares). This court would consider the issue posed in this case only from the limited perspective of the issues regarding acceptance of basic land tax from the land holder concerned. It is not in dispute that Ext.P1 decree has become final and conclusive and the same has not been altered in the manner known to law. It is also not in dispute that so far no competent court of jurisdiction has issued any orders interdicting the official respondents from accepting basic land tax from the petitioner and his son for the entire extent of 2.23 acres. The 2^nd respondent Tahsildar has taken a considered view in Exts.P16 and P18 that the the entries in the basic tax register needs correction so that the extent of land shown as 11.30 Ares in

¶67

W.P.(C)No.34339/2018

¶68

¶69

the name of the petitioner's mother, need to be corrected so that the entire extent of 93.50 Ares ( 2.23 Acres) is shown in the name of the petitioner and his son. The view taken by the 2^nd respondent in Exts.P16 and P18 cannot be found fault with in view of the fact that Ext.P1 decree has become final and conclusive, atleast from the limited point of view of acceptance of basic land tax etc.. Section 5 of the Kerala Land Tax Act deals with charge of land tax. Section 5(2) thereof clearly mandates that the land tax charged on the land shall be collected by the competent revenue officials from the land holder concerned of

¶70

the land. “Land holder” is defined in Section 3(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act which reads as follows:

¶71

“3(3) "land holder" means,-

¶72

(a) in relation to any land hold by a cultivating tenant as defined in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1904), such cultivating tenant; (b) in relation to any land in the possession of a kanam tenant as defined in the Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955 (XXIV of 1955), such kanam tenant; (c) in relation to any land which has not been surveyed and is not held by a cultivating tenant referred to in sub-clause(a), the proprietor of such land;

¶73

(d) in relation to any other land, the registered holder for the time being of such land and includes his legal representatives and assigns and any

¶74

W.P.(C)No.34339/2018

¶75

¶76

person who under any law for the time being in force is liable for the payment of public revenue in respect of the land held by him.”

¶77

In the instant case there does not appear to be any serious dispute

¶78

that the petitioner's father was the registered owner of the property and the property was mutated in his name and he was paying basic land tax in respect of the property concerned during his life time. Therefore the facts conceived in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 3(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act does not arise in this case. Hence in relation to any case other than those conceived in clauses (a), (b) and (c), clause (d) will come into play in which case the land holder is the registered land holder. By virtue of the statutory force of clause (d) of Section 3(3), where the registered land holder dies his legal representative/s will become land holder as understood in Section 3(3)(d) of the Act. In a case where registered land holder alienates or assigns the property to any party, then such an assignee will stand in the definition of “land holder” as understood in Section 3(3)(d) of the Kerala Land Tax Act. In the instant case, by virtue of the force of Ext.P1 decree which has become final and conclusive, the petitioner is the sole legal representative of the deceased father to become the successor land holder as conceived in the second limb of clause (d) of Section 3(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act. Therefore after the death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner would fulfil the definition of “land holder” as understood in Section

¶79

W.P.(C)No.34339/2018

¶80

¶81

3(3) of the Act more particularly clause (d) thereof. Hence the competent revenue officials concerned are under the obligation and duty to accept basic land tax from such “land holder”. Going by the mandate of Section 5(2) read with Section 3(3) more particularly clause (d) thereof, it is the statutory obligation of the competent revenue officials concerned to accept basic land tax from the land holder as understood in Section 3(3)(d) of the Act. If land tax is not accepted from the land holder concerned, it will lead to loss of revenue and it will be nothing but illegal and ultravires and will thus also amount to abdication of statutory obligations of the competent revenue officials like village officer, Tahsildar concerned etc. Section 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Act mandates that the arrangements made under the said Act has been for the general revenue settlement of the State and specifically mandates that notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment, grant, deed or other transaction, arrangement made under the Kerala Land Tax Act for the levy of basic tax shall be the general revenue settlement of the State. By virtue of the powers conferred under Section 20 of the above said Act, rules have been framed as per Kerala Land Tax Act, 1972. Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972 has been framed under the enabling provisions contained in Section 20 of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972 envisages that a register called Basic Tax Register (BTR) shall be maintained in

¶82

W.P.(C)No.34339/2018

¶83

¶84

all village and taluk offices. Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 has not been framed under the enabling provisions contained in any parent enactment and the source of power for framing the said rules eminently appears to be in the domain of executive power of the State as conferred by the Constitution. Hence the provisions in the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 will be subservient to the provisions contained in Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and the to the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972 framed under the said Act. Hence in a case where there is a statutory obligation for the competent revenue officials to accept basic land tax from the “land holder” as understood in Section 3(3) of the Act, then they have no other alternative but to accept basic land tax from the land holder as understood in Section 3(3). In view of the above said aspects, the petitioner would fulfil the definition of “ land holder” as understood in Section 3(3) of the Act in view of the statutory application of Section 3(3)(d) thereof. Now the above said decision of the second respondent as reflected in Exts.P16 and P18 has been duly complied with by the village officer and he has accepted basic land tax as evident from Annexure R3(a) and R3(b) receipts dated 24.11.2018. Hence the 3^rd respondent is also obliged to ensure that consequential action is also taken by him to make necessary entries in the BTR as per Rule 4, so as to comply with the direction in Exts.P16 and P18 wherein it is directed that the balance extent of property which was earlier shown in the name of the

¶85

W.P.(C)No.34339/2018

¶86

¶87

petitioner's mother would be shown in the name of the petitioner. Since the 3^rd respondent has accepted basic land tax from the petitioner as per Annexure R3(a) and R3(b) receipts and in view of the above said aspects, the 3^rd respondent is also equally obliged to make necessary changes in the Basic Tax Register as conceived in Rule 5 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972 to ensure that entries in the basic land tax register as per Exts.P7 and P8 are duly corrected so that an extent of 76.54 ares comprised in Sy.No.82/7 and further an extent of 11.30 Ares comprised in Sy.No.82/1 ( thus totalling to 87.87 Ares) as covered by Annexure R3(a) dated 24.11.2018 is shown in the name of the petitioner and an extent of 5.66 Ares comprised in Sy.No.82/7 as covered by Annexure R3(b) receipt dated 24.11.2018 is shown in the name of the petitioner's son. For making such consequential correction/additional entries in the BTR, the 3^rd respondent may also take steps to allot Thandapper account numbers to the petitioner and his son for the above said property covered by Annexures R3(a) and R3(b) if the same is required.

¶88

However, it is to be borne in mind that the Apex Court and the various High Courts in umpteen number of cases as in Smt.Sawarni v. Smt.Inder Kaur and others ( AIR 1996 SC 2823) held that grant of mutation in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour

¶89

W.P.(C)No.34339/2018

¶90

¶91

mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. This position is all the more explicitly adumbrated in Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. Therein it is provided with all clarity that the summary enquiry and decision thereof is only arrangement of fiscal purposes and does not affect the legal rights of any person in respect of the lands covered by the decisions in the transfer of registry cases and the question of legal rights is always subject to adjudication by Civil Courts and pattas will be revised from time to time in accordance with such judicial decisions. Therefore acceptance of basic land tax from the petitioner as per Annexures R3(a) and R3(b) receipts and the further correction to be carried out in the BTR as directed herein above will not by itself create or extinguish title of the petitioner or any of his rival claimants, including the 4^th respondent etc.. That aspect of the matter is purely within the domain of adjudication of civil courts and as and when verdicts are rendered by the court of competent jurisdiction, it goes without saying that the competent revenue officials like respondents 2 and 3 are obliged to revise and correct the entries in the basic tax register/ mutation records etc. so as to ensure that such records are in consonance with the judicial verdicts. In other words, acceptance of basic land tax and mutation of the property etc. in favour of the petitioner will not by itself confer title on the petitioner or his rival claimants like the 4^th respondent which will have to be adjudicated independently if occasion arises

¶92

W.P.(C)No.34339/2018

¶93

¶94

before the competent courts of jurisdiction.

¶95

The 3^rd respondent will comply with the above said directions to ensure correction of the entries in the basic tax register as aforesaid without much delay probably within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶96

The above said observations and findings made by this court are only from the limited perspective as to whether the land tax is to be accepted from the petitioner for the extent of land in question, in view of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and the Kerala Land Rules, 1972. The question of title or any other disputes raised before the civil court as in Ext.P21suit etc. or any of the civil proceedings will have to be decided independently by such courts untramelled and uninfluenced by any of the observations and findings made by this court hereinabove.

¶97

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

¶98

Sd/-

¶99

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

sv.

W.P.(C)No.34339/2018

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶105

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 12.12.1995 IN O.S.NO.41/1991 PASSED BY SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT,OTTAPALAM.

¶106

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DATED 3.1.1977 ISSUED BY ADDITIONAL LAND TRIBUNAL,THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA CHIT NO.96/1934 DATED 24.2.1934. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 6.2.2016 ISSUED BY TALUK SURVEYOR TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 8.1.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER'S SON. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 12.1.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX REGISTER CONCERNING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX REGISTER CONCERNING 11.30 ARES OF PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER'S MOTHER. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF HEARING NOTICE DATED 10.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 3.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 8.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 15.11.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR,PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 17.4.2018

¶107

W.P.(C)No.34339/2018

¶108

¶109

SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶110

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B1-4847/17 DATED 08.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶111

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 26.5.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 05.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 21.6.2018 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 30.6.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF LETTER 21.7.2018 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 5.7.2018 SUBMITTED BY LEGAL HEIR OF PLAINTIFFS IN O.S.NO.41/1991 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT,OTTAPALAM TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P21 TRUE COPY OF PLAINT DATED 27/10/2018 IN OS NO.323/2018 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, OTTAPALAM. EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF IA NO.3951/2018 DATED 08/11/2018 IN IA NO.3791/2018 IN OS NO.323/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNISS'S COURT, OTTAPALAM.

¶112

EXHIBIT P23 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM REPORT DATED 12/11/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN IA NO.3791/2018 IN OS NO.323/2018 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, OTTAPALAM.

¶113

EXHIBIT P24 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BOOKING OA FOR ISSUANCE OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DATED 28/11/2018 WITH AN ENDORSEMENT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29/11/2018.

¶114

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶115

EXHIBIT R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 24/11/2018.

¶116

W.P.(C)No.34339/2018

¶117

¶118

EXHIBIT R3 (b) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER'S SON DATED 24/11/2018.

Ramakrishna Gupthan v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishna Gupthan v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hamsa Vs the Tahsildar

Nalakathu Paduvingal Muhammed, Vs Union of India

Emmanuel Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Vijayakumar Vs State

G.Sreekumar Vs State of Kerala

Govind Annex Owners' Association Vs Principal Secretary to Government