Disposed

Mohammedali @ Bapputty v. State of Kerla

Kerala HC9 Nov 2018WP(C)/4178/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus directing authorities to accept land tax without insisting on prior title documents. Court directed Tahsildar to reconsider the case, verify prior title and tax payment history, and issue appropriate decision after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Tahsildar directed to reconsider matter, ascertain facts regarding prior title and tax payments, allow petitioner and opposing claimant to be heard, and decide appropriately within two months.

Mohammedali @ Bapputty Vs State of Kerla — Land Acquisition | 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.4178 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MOHAMMEDALI @ BAPPUTTY, AGED 61, S/O.KARIMBIN MOIDEEN, RESIDING AT EDAPPATTA VILLAGE, EDAPPATTA P.O., PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVOCATES M/S.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH, K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR & VANDANA MENON

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA,

¶11

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM-678001.

¶13

3 THE TAHSILDAR,

¶14

TALUK OFFICE, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN:678 762.

¶15

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, PADAVAYAL, VIA THAVALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 762.

¶16

BY SRI.M.R.DHANIL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶20

W.P.(C)No.4178 of 2018

¶21

Dated this the 9^th day of November, 2018

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The prayers in the Writ Petition (Civil) are

¶24

as follows.

¶25

“ i) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, orderdirection, directing the respondents to accept the tax with regard to thepetitioner's property having an extent of 3 acre 76 cents of land situatedin Survey No. 416/1 of Padavayal Village, Mannarkkad Taluk, PalakkadDistrict without insisting the prior documents andi to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, orderdirection, directing the respondents to accept the tax with regard to thepetitioners property having an extent of 3 acre 76 cents of land situatedin Survey No. 416/1 of Padavayal Village, Mannarkkad Taluk, PalakkadDistrict and

¶26

ii) grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit andnecessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶27

W.P.(C).No.4178/2018

¶28

..3..

¶29

2. Heard Sri.Kodoth Pushparajan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.R.Dhanil, learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents 1 to 4 .

¶30

3. According to the petitioner, he is in ownership and possession of 3 acres 76 cents of land in Survey No.416/pt. of Padavayal Village, Mannarkkad Taluk, Palakkad Revenue District as per Ext.P-3 registered sale deed No.486/2006. The said property had originally belonged to one Kuppan Chettiar, who in turn had obtained the same as per Ext.P-1 purchase certificate No.1087/1972 in Suo Moto proceedings initiated under Sec.72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, on the file of the Land Tribunal, Puthur. Then after the death of Kuppan Chettiyar, his legal heirs were in enjoyment and possession of 3.76 acres of land and were paying the Basic Land

¶31

..4..

¶32

W.P.(C).No.4178/2018

¶33

Tax as per Ext.P-2 tax receipt dated 18.12.2003. The legal heirs of Kuppan Chettiar as per Ext.P-3 registered sale deed No.486/2006, had conveyed an extent of 3.76 acres in the above said survey number to the petitioner. Thereafter mutation was effected in favour of the petitioner and basic land tax was accepted from the petitioner as per Ext.P-4 receipt dated 7.5.2011. Later the 4^th respondent Village Officer had refused to accept land tax from the petitioner in respect of the above said property, and insisted the petitioner to produce the prior title documents. The petitioner had made available Ext.P-1 purchase certificate and Ext.P-3 sale deed, as in Ext.P-3 registered sale deed it is clearly stated that

¶34

the prior title deed is Ext.P-1 purchase certificate. Still the 4^th respondent Village Officer had refused to accept basic land tax from

¶35

W.P.(C).No.4178/2018

¶36

..5..

¶37

the petitioner. The 3^rd respondent Tahsildar had filed a statement dated 23.10.2018 through the learned Government Pleader. In paras 3 & 4 of the said statement reads as follows.

¶38

“ 3. It is submitted that the petitioner is claiming right over an extent of 1.5250 Hs of land in Sy No.416/part of Padavayal Village, Mannarkkad Taluk, as per sale deed No.486/2006 of Sub Registrar Office, Agali and also claiming that the land was purchased from the legal heirs of one Kuppan Chettiar and claiming that the above Kuppan Chettiar obtained the same as per document C.P.No.1087/1972, suo motu proceedings 41/72 initiated u/s 72 of the KLR Act from the L.T. Of Pudur.

¶39

4. It is submitted that as per Village records the land is in the name of Aadivasi Pandan moopan S/o.Rangan. The petitioner approaced the 4^th respondent for remitting the land tax in the above said land. Village Officer informed the petitioner to produce the prior documents. But the petitioner has not produced the prior documents. The writ petition is devoid of any merits and hence may be dismissed.”

¶40

4. The contention raised by the respondents

¶41

3 and 4 is that in the village records the land

¶42

W.P.(C).No.4178/2018

¶43

..6..

¶44

is shown in name of Aadivasi Pandan Moopan, S/o.Rangan etc. The Respondents have not disputed the specific factual case of the petitioner, that after Ext.P-3 registered sale deed, the property was mutated in his name and that even basic land tax was accepted from him as Ext.P-4 till 20122013. The respondents cannot turn down the claim of the petitioner on the mere ground that in the entries in village records the land is in the name of another person. A reading of Ext.P-3 registered sale deed would show that it is clearly recited therein that the prior title deed is Ext.P-1 purchase certificate.

¶45

5. The matter should be reconsidered by the 3^rd respondent Tahsildar, and in that regard the petitioner may file representation/petition before that authority, within 3 weeks. The 3^rd respondent will ascertain whether the petitioner

¶46

W.P.(C).No.4178/2018

¶47

has been claimed the prior title for Ext.P-3 deed on the basis of Ext.P-1 purchase certificate and whether basic land tax was also received from Kuppan Chettiyar, the predecessor of the petitioner, as per Ext.P-3. Thereafter the 3^rd respondent should take appropriate decision on the request made by the petitioner for acceptance of land tax in respect of the above said property, after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the above said Pandan Moopan, S/o.Rangan. It is also should be borne in mind that the respondents have not disputed the genuineness and correctness of Ext.P-1 and P-2.

¶48

The process in this regard should be duly completed by the 3^rd respondent Tahsildar within 2 months from the date of production of certified copy of judgment.

¶49

W.P.(C).No.4178/2018

¶50

..8..

¶51

With these observations and directions

¶52

this Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally

¶53

disposed of.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

MMG

W.P.(C).No.4178/2018

..9..

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶61

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, PUTHUR, DATED 19.6.1972.

¶62

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PADAVAYAL DATED 18.12.2003.

¶63

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.486/2006/I IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 1.9.2006. (8PAGES).

¶64

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2012-2013 DATED 7.5.2011 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PADAVAYAL.

Mohammedali @ Bapputty v. State of Kerla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammedali @ Bapputty v. State of Kerla

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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

M.N. Padmini Gopinath Vs the District Collector

St. Antonys Higher Secondary School Vs State of Kerala

Sabeer Vs District Collector