The High Court examined a Writ Appeal challenging an order permitting tax remission for land mutation. The court found the appellants were misinformed about prior proceedings and the facts supporting their challenge were erroneous once clarified, leading to the closure of the appeal.
The Writ Appeal was closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 24TH JYAISHTA, 1941
W.A.No.1328 of 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 5393/2019 of HIGH COURT DATED 22.2.2019
APPELLANTS/NOT PARTIES IN W.P.(C):
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN R.RANJANIE
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS IN WPC:
1 JERRY PERARA, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.LAZER FERERA, THOPPIL ST.ANTONYS BUNGALOW, VARAPUZHA LANDING P.O., PIN-683 517, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE.
W.A.No.1328 of 2019
: 2 :
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.No.1328 of 2019
: 3 :
JUDGMENT
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
When this Writ Appeal had come up for admission on 30.5.2019, this court after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent
writ petitioner and also the Government Pleader had recorded the following order:
“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Heard Smt. R. Ranjanie the learned counsel appearing for the applicant/third parties. Also heard Sri. T.P. Sajan, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/Writ Petitioner. Sri. Aravindakumar Babu, the learned Senior Government Pleader, represents the State Authorities.
W.A.No.1328 of 2019
: 4 :
tendering of the basic tax was made subject to the outcome of the Appeal, pending before the District Collector.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .”
had thereafter filed a counter affidavit enclosing the notice dated 26.11.2018 (Annexure R1(A), which indicated that a hearing before the District Collector, Ernakulam was in fact scheduled on 4.12.2018 on the application submitted by the said respondent for mutation of property in Re.Sy.No.139 in Block No.4 of Cheranelloor Village. The learned counsel for the appellant, at that stage, contended that there was in fact no hearing held on 4.12.2018 as was submitted by the writ petitioners in their counter affidavit. To ascertain the correct factual position the learned Government Pleader was asked to get instructions from the District Collector. Today, when the matter was called, it is reported
W.A.No.1328 of 2019
: 5 :
by the learned Government Pleader that on 4.12.2018, a hearing was in fact conducted, when the writ petitioners appeared and submitted a detailed argument note. It is also informed that the appellants were not present at the time of hearing on 4.12.2018, although notice was served on them. It would appear, therefore, that there was indeed a notice dated 26.11.2018 issued to the respondents/writ petitioners and the said respondents/writ petitioners had in fact attended a hearing before the District Collector on 4.12.2018. The averment in their Writ Petition that the District Collector had not proceeded to pass orders despite the hearing on 4.12.2018, cannot therefore said to be factually incorrect. We find, therefore, that the very basis of the averments in the Writ Appeal, that the judgment impugned in the Writ Appeal was obtained by suppressing the real facts, is erroneous. We also take note of the fact that, pursuant to the directions of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, the Basic Tax in respect of the land has already been accepted from the respondent/writ petitioners.
SD/HRISHIKESH ROY CHIEF JUSTICE
SD/A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
jes
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Appeal could be adjudicated after the facts supporting the challenge to the impugned judgment were found erroneous.
Whether the basis for closing the appeal was valid given the clarified positions on the hearing and tax tender.
K.J.Vakkachan
K.J.Jacob
K.J.Bastin
O.S.Prajeesh
K.P.Joseph
Jerry Perera
Hrishikesh Roy
A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
