Disposed

C.Narayanan v. the Village Officer, Shornur - II

Kerala HC5 Apr 2018WP(C)/4154/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition where petitioners were aggrieved by non-acceptance of basic tax on land due to discrepancy in area between records and possession. Court permitted an application under Transfer of Registry Rules to resolve rights over the additional extent.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to approach the respondent or Tahsildar with an application under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966.

C.Narayanan Vs the Village Officer, Shornur… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 2018 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 4154 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1	C. NARAYANAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVA MENON, RESIDING AT 2401, A WING, RUSTONJEE ACURA, EASTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY, MAJIWADA, THANE, MUMBAI, REPRESENTED BY BROTHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER C. NANDAGOPAL, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVA MENON, RESIDING AT KRISHNA VIHAR, VETTOM P.O, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2	C. BALARAMAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVA MENON, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.A-3 APPLE HILLS PALACE APARTMENTS, PHASE I, THIRUVAMKULAM, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY BROTHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER C. NANDAGOPAL, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVA MENON, RESIDING AT KRISHNA VIHAR, VETTOM P.O, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3	INDUCHUDAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVA MENON, RESIDING AT 5/125, RUGMINI NILAYAM, KADAMBUR, OTTAPALAM, REPRESENTED BY BROTHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER C. NANDAGOPAL, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVA MENON, RESIDING AT KRISHNA VIHAR, VETTOM P.O, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
4	C. NANDAGOPAL, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVA MENON, RESIDING AT KRISHNA VIHAR, VETTOM P.O, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
5	C. GOPINATHAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVA MENON, RESIDING AT 38/612 C, NAVAMI, EAST HILL, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY BROTHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER C. NANDAGOPAL, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVA MENON, RESIDING AT KRISHNA VIHAR, VETTOM P.O, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
6	C. MAYA, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O. MADHAVA MENON, RESIDING AT MAYA VIHAR, POST KULAPULLI, SHORNUR, REPRESENTED BY BROTHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER C. NANDAGOPAL, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVA MENON, RESIDING AT KRISHNA VIHAR, VETTOM P.O, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH

¶8

WP(C).No. 4154 of 2018 (T)

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, SHORNUR - II, POST SHORNUR, PALAKKAD - 679 122.

¶11

BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-04-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

mbr/

¶13

WP(C).No. 4154 of 2018 (T)

¶14

		APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ------------	EXHIBITS: ---------
EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE	COPY OF THE SALE SANAD.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE TO C.	COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED KUNHIRAMA MENON DATED 14.3.1978.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE	COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.962/79 DATED 30.5.1979.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE RESPON	COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE DENT TO RADHAAMMA DATED 20.4.15.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE 790/16	COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DOCUMENT NO. DATED 21.6.16.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE	COPY OF THE CORRECTION DEED DATED 23.8.17.

¶15

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ---------------------

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

mbr/ 09.04.2018.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶20

W.P.(C). No. 4154 OF 2018

¶21

Dated this the 05^th day of April, 2018

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Petitioners are aggrieved by non-acceptance of the basic tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 in respect of 24.34 cents in their possession for the past several decades. According to the petitioner, properties were being conveyed from generation to generation and the properties are demarcated well within a boundary. For reasons best known to the respondent, he is not accepting tax for the aforesaid extent of property on the ground that the petitioner is not having title or interest over the said property, in accordance with the revenue records.

¶24

A statement is filed by the respondent, in which

¶25

it is recited in paragraph 3 as follows:-

¶26

“3. It is submitted that after the death of the Radhamma, the petitioners, being the children and legal heirs of the deceased, decided to partition the land they legally entitled. When measured it was found that the extent of land is 2.61 acres in

¶27

W.P.(C). No. 4154 OF 2018

¶28

¶29

Sy. No. 271/2 instead of 2.36 acres. Including the excess land the petitioners executed the partition deed and approached the respondent for mutation. On examination it was found that the back document based on partition deed and the tax receipt the land has only an extent of 2.36 acres in the Sy. No. and that is the reason in not accepting the land tax with respect to the excess land found. The petitioners later executed a correction deed by proportionately reducing the excess land and based on the correction deed mutation was effected and tax was received.”

¶30

Whatever be the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the issue can be sorted out if petitioners make a proper application under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 claiming rights over the additional extent of property held by the petitioners. According to the petitioners, even though petitioners attempted to file a suitable application before the authority under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 the respondent is not receiving the same.

¶31

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners are given the liberty to approach the

¶32

W.P.(C). No. 4154 OF 2018

¶33

¶34

respondent with a suitable application under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which shall be considered by the respondent, or if there is any dispute, by the Tahsildar concerned, at the earliest and at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing sufficient opportunity of participation to the petitioners or any other interested persons.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶36

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶37

DCS

C.Narayanan v. the Village Officer, Shornur - II

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Narayanan v. the Village Officer, Shornur - II

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

M/Snavin Constructions Corporation Vs Shinamol

Louin M.O Vs Union of India

Lijey B.K. Vs Superintendent, Kozhikode Medical College Hospital

Paulose Abraham Vs Kerala Water Authority

Kollam Labour Contract Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Shyja.P Vs State of Kerala