Disposed

Padhmanabhan Cherikkalingal v. the District Collector, Malappuram

Kerala HC14 Nov 2018WP(C)/4085/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the District Collector to treat the petitioner's applications as revision petitions under Section 13A of the Survey and Boundaries Act. The Court ordered a survey by the Taluk Surveyor to ascertain the correctness of the claim that 40 cents of petitioner's land was wrongly allotted to another person during resewing, requiring a decision within four months.

What did the court decide?

District Collector directed to treat applications as revision petitions under Sec.13A Survey & Boundaries Act, conduct survey, and decide within 4 months.

Padhmanabhan Cherikkalingal Vs the District Collector… — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No.4085 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PADHMANABHAN CHERIKKALINGAL

¶8

S/O.KORUKUTTY, GOLDEN KEY HOUSE, MERUVINKUNNU, MUNJAKKULAM, KOOTILANGADI POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 506.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.E.C.AHAMED FAZIL

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2 THE TAHSILDAR ERNAD TALUK, MINI CIVIL STATION, MANJERI-676 121.

¶13

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKALANGODE VILLAGE OFFICE, THRIKKALANGODE, VIA MANJERI, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 127.

¶14

4 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P(C)No.4085 of 2018

¶18

¶19

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶20

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

¶21

W.P(C)No.4085 of 2018 =============================

¶22

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2018

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The prayers in the aforecaptioned Writ

¶25

Petition (Civil) are as follows:

¶26

“I. to call for the records leading to Exhibits P1 to P7 and direct third respondent to accept land tax from petitioner and other co-owners for the property having extent of 40 cents in Re-survey No.205/16 of Thrikkalangode Village, Ernad Taluk, Malappuram by issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order.

¶27

II. such other relief in favour of the petitioner as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant.”

¶28

2. Heard Sri.E.C.Ahamed Fazil, learned

¶29

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶30

3. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 3^rd respondentVillage Officer from accepting basic land tax in respect of the property, which is came to be in the title and possession of the petitioner and

¶31

W.P(C)No.4085 of 2018

¶32

¶33

their co-owners. The petitioner and the other coowners concerned claim title on the basis of Ext.P-1 Purchase Certificate No.164/1981 rendered by the Land Tribunal, Manjeri in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner. That accordingly the petitioner’s predecessor has been paying basic land tax for the full extent of 1 Acre as evident from Ext.P-2 Land Tax receipt dated 22.04.1992. Thereafter, no land tax is being accepted from the petitioner as well as his predecessor for an extent of 40 cents out of the abovesaid 1 Acre. The petitioner came to know about the non-acceptance of basic land tax only after the demise of his father. As of now, the land tax is being accepted only in respect of 60 cents of property as can be seen from Ext.P-2 receipt dated Ext.P-2(a) dated 20.07.2017. On enquiry, the petitioner was informed that after re-survey conducted in 1994, the property of the petitioner is re-surveyed inclusive of two re-survey numbers, viz., 205/4 & 205/16 and that

¶34

W.P(C)No.4085 of 2018

¶35

¶36

out of the 1 acre of the property, 60 cents of the property lies in re-survey No.205/4 and the remaining 40 cents of property lies in re-survey No.205/16. Further, the petitioner has been informed by the respondents that the properties situated in re-survey No.205/16 coming to 40 cents

¶37

is shown in the name of one Sri.Kamalasandan and that the ceiling case is pending in connection with the land belonging to Sri.Kamalasandan and that in view of these aspects, the revenue officials have refused to accept the basic land tax for the petitioner’s property situated in re-survey No.205/16 for an extent of 40 cents. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P-4 application dated 28.03.2011 before the 1^st respondent-District Collector, Malappuram, seeking clarification of the discrepancy and to accept the basic land tax from the petitioner and the other co-owners concerned but that no effective action has been taken on Ext.P-4. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred an application before the Hon’ble Chief

¶38

W.P(C)No.4085 of 2018

¶39

¶40

Minister of Kerala during the mass contact programme, in which directions are issued to the 2^nd respondent-Tahsildar to consider the grievance. Upon which, the 2^nd respondent-Tahsildar had issued Ext.P-6 letter dated 14.11.2011, which reads as

¶41

follows:

¶42

"സൂചന കത്തുകളളിലലേകക്ക് ശ്രദ്ധ ക്ഷണളിക്കുന. തത്യകലേലങങ്ങോടക്ക് വളിലല്ലേജക്ക്, ലബങ്ങോകക്ക് 62, റളി.സ. 205/4-ൽപപ്പെട്ട ഭൂമളിയുപട ററീസർപവ്വെയളിൽ വന്ന അപങ്ങോകത പരളിഹരളികണപമനന, ടളി ഭൂമളികക്ക് നളികുതളി സസറീകരളികണപമനന ആവശത്യപപ്പെട്ടക്ക് സമർപ്പെളിച അലപക്ഷയളിലന്മേൽ തത്യകലേലങങ്ങോടക്ക് വളിലല്ലേജക്ക് ഓഫറീസർ മുലഖേന അലനസഷണന നടതളിയതളിൽ മലഞ്ചേരളി ലേങ്ങോനക്ക് ടട്രൈബൂണലേളിപലേ (എസക്ക്.എന.64/1981) 164/81-പലേ പതളിച്ചുപകങ്ങോടുകൽ സർട്ടളിഫളികറക്ക് പ്രകങ്ങോരന ഒരു ഏകർ ഭൂമളി തത്യകലേലങങ്ങോടക്ക് വളിലല്ലേജളിൽ റളി.സ. 205/4ൽ അലപക്ഷകൻ ലപരളിൽ ടകവശതളിലുള്ളതങ്ങോയളി കങ്ങോണുന്നതങ്ങോയുന, ടളി ഭൂമളികക്ക് 1991-92 വർഷന വപര നളികുതളി അടവങ്ങോകളിയതങ്ങോയുന, എന്നങ്ങോൽ ററീസർലവ്വെയക്ക് ലശഷന റളികങ്ങോർഡുകൾ നളിലേവളിൽ വന്നലപ്പെങ്ങോൾ (1994-1995) ബളി.ടളി.ആർ. പ്രകങ്ങോരവന, എഫക്ക്.എന.ബളി. പ്രകങ്ങോരവന പ്രസ് ത സ്ഥലേതളിപന വളിസറീർണന 0.2400 പഹക്ടർ ലചർതക്ക് കങ്ങോണുന്നതങ്ങോയുന, ടളി ഭൂമളികക്ക് ഭൂനളികുതളി നങ്ങോളളിതുവപര സസറീകരളിച്ചുവരുന്നതങ്ങോയുന, ടളിയങ്ങോൻ ററീസർലവ്വെയളിപലേ അപങ്ങോകത പരളിഗണളികണപമനന, ഭൂനളികുതളി സസറീകരളികണപമനന ആവശത്യപപ്പെടുന്ന ഭൂമളി ശ്രറീമതളി.കമലേങ്ങോ സസങ്ങോന്തൻ എന്നളിവരളിൽനളിനന മളിചഭൂമളിയങ്ങോയളി ഏപറടുതക്ക് പതളിച്ചുനൽകളിയ ലബങ്ങോകക്ക് 62, റളി.സ. 205/16-ൽപപ്പെട്ട ഭൂമളിയങ്ങോപണനന, ആയതളിനങ്ങോൽ ടളിയപന അലപക്ഷ പരളിഗണളികങ്ങോൻ നളിർവ്വെങ്ങോഹമളിപല്ലേനന വളിലല്ലേജക്ക് ഓഫറീസർ റളിലപ്പെങ്ങോർട്ടക്ക് പചയളിട്ടുള്ള വളിവരന അറളിയളിക്കുന.

¶43

കൂടങ്ങോപത ശ്രറീ.ലചരളികല്ലേളിങൽ വളിജയൻ എന്നവർ നൽകളിയ പജ.എസക്ക്.എ. 393/2009 നമ്പർ അദങ്ങോലേതക്ക് അലപക്ഷയളിൽ തങ്ങോലൂകക്ക് സർപവ്വെയറന, ടളി വളിഷയന റളിലപ്പെങ്ങോർട്ടക്ക് പചയതളിപന അടളിസ്ഥങ്ങോനതളിൽ

¶44

W.P(C)No.4085 of 2018

¶45

¶46

റളി.സ. 205/16-ൽപപ്പെട്ട ഭൂമളി ടളിയങ്ങോപന ലപരളിൽ ലചർതക്ക് റളികങ്ങോർഡളിൽ മങ്ങോറന വരുത്തുവങ്ങോൻ നളിർവ്വെങ്ങോഹമളിപല്ലേന്നക്ക് കങ്ങോണളിചക്ക് ഫയൽ കുറവക്ക് പചയങ്ങോവന്നതങ്ങോപണന്നക്ക് റളിലപ്പെങ്ങോർട്ടക്ക് പചയതളിപന അടളിസ്ഥങ്ങോനതളിൽ ഫയൽ കുറവക്ക് പചയക്ക് വളിവരന കക്ഷളിപയ അറളിയളിചളിട്ടുള്ളതങ്ങോയുന തങ് ങ പള അറളിയളിക്കുന.

¶47

വളിശസങ്ങോസപൂർവ്വെന

¶48

അഡ�ഷണൽ തഹസ�ൽദ�ർ , ഏറന�ട� "

¶49

4. A reading of para.1 of Ext.P-6 letter

¶50

would show that the 2^nd respondent-Tahsildar has admitted therein that 1 Acre of property in re-survey No.205/4 was in the possession of the petitioner and that basic land tax for the said extent of 1 Acre was received upto the year 19911992 etc. and that the problem has arisen after the re-survey, after which 40 cents of property

¶51

has been shown in re-survey No.205/16 etc. and that since the said property of 40 cents is shown in the name of the abovesaid Sri.Kamalasandan, further action is closed etc. The petitioner has

¶52

also preferred Ext.P-7 application dated 24.04.2012 & Ext.P-8 application dated 09.03.2017 before the 1^st respondent-District Collector for

¶53

¶54

¶55

taking further action for removal of the said discrepancies in the re-survey etc. The 2^nd respondent-Tahsildar has filed a statement dated 08.06.2018 in this case. Therein also objections have been raised in view of the abovesaid aspects. However, the facts admitted by

¶56

the 2^nd respondent-Tahsildar in para.1 of Ext.P-6 letter that the petitioner was in possession of 1 Acre of property and that the basic land tax was being accepted from him till 1991-1992 etc. is not even seen reflected in the pleadings in the said statement.

¶57

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances in this case, this Court is of the considered view that the 1^st respondent-District Collector should treat Exts.P-7 & P-8 applications

¶58

as statutory revision petitions under Sec.13A of the Survey & Boundaries Act, in respect of the prayer of the petitioner for correction of the alleged mistakes in the re-survey whereby, 40 cents of land in the re-survey No.205/16 has

¶59

¶60

¶61

been shown in the name of the abovesaid Sri.Kamalasandan etc. The petitioner may also file a formal revision petition under Sec.13A of the Survey & Boundaries Act before the 1^st respondent-District Collector to supplement his submissions and contentions in Exts.P-7 & P-8 and this may be done within 1 month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent will ensure a survey, measurement and identification of the property covered by Ext.P-1 is got done with the aid and assistance of the Taluk Surveyor concerned

¶62

with due prior notice to the petitioner, the abovesaid Sri.Kamalasandan and any other neighbouring property owners. The copy of the report of the Taluk Surveyor on the outcome of the survey, measurement and demarcation of the petitioner’s property, along with the copy of the survey sketch should be given to the petitioner & other co-owners as well as to Sri.Kamalasandan and

¶63

any other affected parties. The Taluk Surveyor

¶64

¶65

¶66

should make attempts in the abovesaid process to find out and to ascertain as to the correctness of the submissions of the petitioner that the mistakes are happened in the re-survey process, whereby 40 cents property has been shown in the name of Sri.Kamalasandan etc. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent-District Collector will afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner & the other co-owners as well as Sri.Kamalasandan and any other affected parties and then should ascertain the correctness of the submissions of the petitioner that mistakes are happened in re-survey which led to the allotment of 40 cents of the said land covered by Ext.P-1 in re-survey No.205/16 in the name of Sri.Kamalasandan etc. A considered decision on the abovesaid matter should be rendered by the 1^st respondent-District Collector in exercise of his statutory powers under Sec.13A. The entire

¶67

process in this regard should be duly completed by the 1^st respondent, without much

¶68

¶69

¶70

delay, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶71

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

¶72

disposed of.

¶73

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

vgd/19.11.18

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶79

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO. 164 OF 1981 ISSUED FROM LAND TRIBUNAL, MANJERI. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 22.04.1992 ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKALANGODE. EXHIBIT P2A TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.07.2017 ISSUED FROM VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKALANGODE. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY AFTER RE-SURVEY. EXHIBIT P3A TRUE COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY BEFORE RE-SURVEY. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 28.03.2011 PREFERRED BY PETITIONER BEFORE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. H310455/2010/KDS DATED 10.11.2011 ISSUED BY ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, ERNAD. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO. H331919/2011/JSP DATED 14.11.2011 ISSUED BY ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, ERNAD. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 24.04.2012 PREFERRED BY PETITIONER BEFORE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 09.03.2017 PREFERRED BY PETITIONER BEFORE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM

Padhmanabhan Cherikkalingal v. the District Collector, Malappuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padhmanabhan Cherikkalingal v. the District Collector, Malappuram

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

Charles K. Thomas Vs District Collector, Idukki

Abdul Rehman Vs the District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Painavu

Kunjumuhammed Vs State of Kerala

Sindhu Satheesh Vs the State of Kerala

Muhammed Vs the State of Kerala

Shihabudheen Kolekkarath Vs the Village Officer