Disposed

Ayub K.M v. Village Officer, Pazhayannur Village

Kerala HC5 Sept 2018WP(C)/4780/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought mutation of property and acceptance of basic tax. The Court directed respondents to effect mutation on undisputed land and accept tax, while the petitioner must approach the Tahsildar regarding disputed land.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to effect mutation and accept tax on undisputed property; directed petitioner to approach Tahsildar for disputed property.

Ayub K.M Vs Village Officer, Pazhayannur Village — Kerala HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 05TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 14TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 4780 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

AYUB K.M S/O.MOIDHEEN KUTTY, AGED 34 YEARS, KOOTTAPURACKAL,PAZHAYANNUR, KUMBALAKODE P.O., PAZHAYANNOOR VILLAGE,THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 VILLAGE OFFICER, PAZHAYANNUR VILLAGE PAZHAYANNUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680587.

¶11

2 THE TAHASILDAR TALUK OFFICE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680587.

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001.

¶13

4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,INDUSTRIAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER B.VINOD

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 4780 of 2018

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking

¶20

the following reliefs:

¶21

'i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the first respondent to receive land tax of property of petitioner covered by Exhibit P1 settlement deed and issue receipt after effecting mutation of property in favour of petitioner within a reasonable period which this Honourable court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case.

¶22

ii. declare that the first respondent has no right or authority to deny the payment of tax by the petitioner since the land tax is revenue to the exchequer.'

¶23

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶24

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's application for mutation and for acceptance of basic tax is not being considered by the respondents.

¶25

4. A statement has been placed on record by the 2^nd respondent specifically stating that the property to which the petitioner has title is comprised in Sy.No.730/1 of Pazhayannur Village and that the property to which the petitioner claims right to pay basic tax is comprised in Sy.No. 730/2. It is stated that it is only in respect of the path way in 730/2 that basic tax is not being accepted. The petitioner would contend that the dispute now raised by the respondents is only with regard to a small extent of property

¶26

WP(C).No. 4780 of 2018

¶27

¶28

which is stated to be 'Porambok Edavazhi'. It is stated that it is clear from paragraph 8 of the statement filed by the 2^nd respondent that the claim of the petitioner for mutation was in respect of 10 cents of land and it was found that the petitioner and his mother were in lawful possession only of a lesser extent and therefore the application for mutation cannot be considered.

¶29

Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that the mutation in respect of the undisputed portions of the property can be allowed. The respondents are therefore directed to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on the applications for mutation preferred by the petitioner and to effect mutation in respect of the undisputed extent of property and to accept basic tax from the petitioner with respect to the same. With respect to the disputed property, the petitioner is permitted to take up the matter before the Tahsildar as against Ext.R2(b). If an appeal is preferred as against Ext.R2(b) order by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered, in accordance with law.

¶30

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

sab

¶33

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶34

WP(C).No. 4780 of 2018

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 11/8/2017 EXECUTED BY PATHUMA BEEVI IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF NON-ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DATED 5/12/2017 REGARDING THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 20/9/2016 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 8/2/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT

¶39

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT R2 A A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN SKETCH AND REPORT OF THE TALUK SURVEYOR EXHIBIT R2 B A TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 27/11/2017

¶41

//TRUE COPY//

¶42

PA TO JUDGE sab

Ayub K.M v. Village Officer, Pazhayannur Village

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayub K.M v. Village Officer, Pazhayannur Village

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

Terrance Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

Sindhu Vs State of Kerala

Silpa Projects and Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Thiruvantnhapuram Development Authority (Trida)

The Manager, Life Insurance Corporaiton of India Vs v.N.Jhansi

Johny Joseph Vs the Commissioner (Land Revenue)

K.Y.Varghese Vs State of Kerala