Dismissed

K.R.Narayana Pai v. the Village Officer

Kerala HC28 Oct 2019WP(C)/6851/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition directing the revenue authorities to accept land tax from the petitioner in respect of the property possessed by him in Re-survey No.342/4 in Block No.3 in Kuzhuppilly Village, to the extent as decreed by the Munsiff's Court in O.S. No.278/2009.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents to accept land tax from the petitioner in respect of the property possessed by him in Re-survey No.342/4 in Block No.3 in Kuzhuppilly Village, to the extent as decreed by the

K.R.Narayana Pai Vs the Village Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.6851 OF 2013(F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.R.NARAYANA PAI

¶8

S/O. LATE SRI. K.J. RANGA PAI, H. NO. K.P. 11/200, HARI PRIYA, (KONERI HOUSE,) PALLATHAMKULANGARA BEACH ROAD, KUZHUPPILLY, AYYAMPILLY.P.O., PIN-682501, ERNAKUALM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KUZHUPPILLY, KUZHUPPILLY VILLAGE OFFICE, KUZHUPILLY, AYYAMPILLY.P.O., PIN-682501, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

2 THE TAHSILDAR KOCHI TALUK OFFICE, KOCHI-682001.

¶13

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, KOCHI-30.

¶14

4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682016(RESURVEY)

¶15

5 THE REVENUE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.N.B. SUNIL NATH

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.10.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C)No.6851 OF 2013(F)

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 28^th day of October, 2019

¶23

Writ petition has been filed seeking to set aside Ext.P4 proceedings dated 28.12.2012 of the Additional Tahsildar, Kochi and to direct respondents 1 to 3 to receive land tax in respect of 17.35 Ares of land in Re-survey No.342/4 of Kuzhuppilly Village from the petitioner without further delay. The petitioner contends that the area of petitioner's property in Re-survey No.342/4 in Block No.3 of Kuzhuppilly Village is 16.19 Ares as per title deeds. However, in re-survey records, the extent of area is 17.35 Ares. On 02.05.2009, the petitioner filed application before the 2^nd respondent to receive land tax for the area of 17.35 Ares as per re-survey records. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to direct respondents 1 to 3 to

¶24

WP(C)No.6851 OF 2013(F)

¶25

¶26

receive land tax with effect from 21.12.2004 in respect of 17.35 Ares of land in Re-survey No.342/4.

¶27

When this matter came up for hearing today, the learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that in O.S. No.278/2009 before the Munsiff's Court, North Paravur, a survey was conducted which came to the finding that the extent of area possessed by the petitioner is only 16.87 Ares. Therefore, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to accept land tax in respect of the said extent of property with effect from 2011-2012 onwards.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5.

¶29

In view of Ext.P12 judgment of the competent civil court in O.S. No.278/2009, which has concluded that the

¶30

property possessed by the petitioner is 16.87 Ares, there is no serious issue involved for adjudication.

¶31

In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to accept land tax from the petitioner in respect of the property possessed by him in

¶32

WP(C)No.6851 OF 2013(F)

¶33

¶34

Re-survey No.342/4 in Block No.3 in Kuzhuppilly Village, to the

¶35

extent as decreed by the Munsiff's Court, North Paravur in

¶36

O.S. No.278/2009.

¶37

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

¶38

aks/28.10.2019

¶39

WP(C)No.6851 OF 2013(F)

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE THANDAPPER ACCOUNT (TPR)

¶44

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER (B.T.R.)

¶45

EXT.P2A TRUE COPY OF THE SUB DIVISION STATEMENT IN FOR NO.7

¶46

EXT.P2B TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED AREA LIST IN FORM NO. 93 FROM THE RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, ERNAKULAM SENT TO THE TAHSILDAR KOCHI.

¶47

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF AREA REGISTER EXTRACT OBTAINED FROM P.I.O. AND HEAD SURVEYOR TALUK OFFICE, KOCHI.

¶48

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. S6-15600/11 DATED 28-12-12 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, KOCHI.

¶49

EXT.P5 TRUE COYP OF THE LR NO. C2-222/11 DATED 7-5-11 FROM THE RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT ERNAKULAM.

¶50

EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. C2-523/11 DATED 19-7-11 FROM THE RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT ERNAKULAM.

¶51

EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF LR. NO. A5-12124/11 FROM THE SURVEY DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶52

EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF PAGE 713 OF LAWS ON LAND IN KERALA 2012-13 EDITION.

¶53

EXT.P8A TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT TO RULE 56 OF KS & B RULES, 1964 PUBLISHED IN 2011 (4) KLT

¶54

EXT.P9 COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT WITH SKETCH FILED BY ADV. COMMISSIONER T.V.SHIVADASMEN IN OS.278/2009 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, N. PARAVOOR

¶55

¶56

¶57

EXT.P10 COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS IN OS.278/2009 IN THE MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR.

¶58

EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS.278/2009 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, N. PARAVUR

¶59

EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS.278/2009 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, NORTH PARAVUR

K.R.Narayana Pai v. the Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.R.Narayana Pai v. the Village Officer

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

Sijo Jolly K Vs the District Collector

Vidya.P.G Vs the District Collector

Avin Aji, Vs the District Collector

Paneer Selvam Vs the District Registrar

Suresh.T.T Vs Special Deputy Tahsildar

P.Victor Cleatus Vs Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board