Disposed

V.P.Joy v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Nov 2020WP(C)/11470/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a mandate to collect building tax for a demolished building and an order to identify land in possession of the petitioner after acquisition. The court rejected the tax claim and referred the petitioner to the Taluk Surveyor for land identification.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Taluk Surveyor for property identification; tax relief denied due to building demolition.

V.P.Joy Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.11470 OF 2012(G)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

V.P.JOY,AGED 70 YEARS S/O.PAULOSE RESIDING AT “ASHIYANA”, NECHOOR P.O ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN 686664

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.AJEESH S.BRITE

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVT.SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1

¶11

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE ERNAKULAM 682036

¶12

3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICERLAO REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA 686660

¶13

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MANEEDU VILLAGE OFFICER MANEEDU P.O ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682037

¶14

5 PANCHAYATH SECRETARY MANEED GRAMA PANCHAYATH

¶15

6 SRI.SHAJI JOHN VALIYAMATTATHIL HOUSE (UNNI BHAVAN) NECHOOR MANEEDU P.O 686664

¶16

R5 BY ADV. SRI.SUNU P.JOHN R6 BY ADV. SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY

¶17

-2-

¶18

W.P.(C). No. 11470 of 2012

¶19

R6 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

SMT A.C.VIDHYA - GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

-3-

¶24

W.P.(C). No. 11470 of 2012

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner of 2 cents of land with a building in Sy.No.390/1 of Maneedu Village in Muvattupuzha Taluk, covered by sale deed No.502/1114 of the Sub Registrar Office, Ikkaranadu and Ext.P1 tax receipt dated 16.10.2007, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 5^th respondent Grama Panchayat to receive building tax in respect of the building situated in that property and also directing the respondents to identify the petitioner's property having an extent of two cents in Sy.No.391/1 of Maneed Village in Muvattupuzha Taluk.

¶27

On 18.05.2012, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondents.

¶28

A counter affidavit has been filed by the Secretary of the 5^th respondent Grama Panchayat, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Paragraph 3 to 7 of the said counter affidavit read thus:

¶29

-4-

¶30

W.P.(C). No. 11470 of 2012

¶31

“3. It is submitted that the subject building bearing No.5/88 was entered in the assessment register of Maneed Grama Panchayat for the year 1993. As per the assessment register, the building was in possession of Paily Paulose, Thadathil Puthenpura. As per the available records, the subject building is not in existence now.

¶32

The building numbered as 5/88 assessed by Maneed Grama Panchayat was already acquired by the Government of Kerala for constructing approach road to Nechoor Kadavu bridge. While constructing the approach road, the building was demolished.

¶33

The petitioner had requested the respondent to issue building tax receipt for the building which was numbered as 5/88 assessed by Maneed Grama Panchayath. The Panchayat could not receive the building tax and issue receipt thereof as there is no building therein. The Panchayat is unable to receive the building tax in respect of the building not in existence now as rightly stated by the petitioner in the statement of facts and in the ground attached thereof.

¶34

In the circumstances, the first part of the prayer in the writ petition to direct the fifth respondent to receive the building tax is unreasonable, illegal and baseless.

¶35

Regarding the second part of the prayer in the writ petition to verify 2 cents of land in survey number 391/1 of Maneed Village in Muvattupuzha Taluk, action is to be taken by the Revenue Department. In respect of the civil dispute, concerning the matter (Exhibit P4) this respondent is not a party also.”

¶36

-5-

¶37

W.P.(C). No. 11470 of 2012

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and also the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent Grama Panchayat.

¶39

The specific stand taken by the 5^th respondent in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit is that the request made by the petitioner to accept building tax for the building, which was numbered as “5/88 of Maneed Grama Panchayat”, cannot be considered, since no such building is in existence.

¶40

The fact that the aforesaid building has already been demolished is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the said building has already been demolished, the petitioner cannot seek a writ of mandamus commanding the 5^th respondent Grama Panchayat to receive building tax in respect of that building.

¶41

The further relief sought for is an order directing the respondent to identify the petitioner's property having an extent of 2 cents in Sy.No.390/1 of Maneedu Village in Muvattupuzha Taluk. During the course of arguments, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, after the land acquisition proceedings, the petitioner is in possession of certain extent of land

¶42

-6-

¶43

W.P.(C). No. 11470 of 2012

¶44

in Sy.No.390/1 of Maneed Village. In order to identify any such property, it is for the petitioner to approach the concerned Taluk Surveyor with a proper application, after complying with the statutory requirements.

¶45

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of leaving open the right of the petitioner to approach the concerned Taluk Surveyor, with a proper application to identify the property alleged to be in his possession in Sy.No.390/1 of Maneed Village and pursue that application in accordance with law.

¶46

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything as to the merits of the claim made by the petitioner that, after land acquisition proceedings, he is in possession of certain extent of land in Sy.No.390/1 of Maneed Village.

¶47

Sd/ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶48

das

¶49

W.P.(C). No. 11470 of 2012

¶50

-7-

¶51

APPENDIX

¶52

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE MANEEDU VILLAGE OFFICER INFAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 16-10-2007. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE MANEEDU GRAMA PANCHAYATH IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 15-102007. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.25/2003 OF MUNSIFF COURT AT MUVATTUPUZHA EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD IN LAR.91/2007 OF SUB COURT MUVATTUPUZHA

V.P.Joy v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.P.Joy v. State of Kerala

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

The Carithas Hospital Trust, Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences

Deepa Thankappan Vs Tahasildar

Rani Chandra P.S, Vs Sudhakaran Nair

K B Abdul Kareem Vs State of Kerala

Ajanthakumari Vs State of Kerala

Mgm Silver Jubilee College of Polytechnic and Pharmaceutical Sciences Vs State of Kerala