Allowed

Varghese Padichaparambil Chacko, v. the District Collector

Kerala HC23 Oct 2020WP(C)/12685/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of two writ petitions filed by apartment owners aggrieved by revenue authorities' refusal to accept land tax and issue revenue records due to alleged attachments on the builder's property, upholding the owners' rights as the attachments occurred post-purchase.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to accept basic tax and issue revenue records, including location sketch and possession certificate within four weeks upon production of title deeds.

Varghese Padichaparambil Chacko, Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.12685 OF 2020(I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VARGHESE PADICKAPARAMBIL CHACKO, AGED 47 YEARS,

¶8

S/O.P.V.CHACKO, PADICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAMPADY P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686502.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, COCHIN, PIN-682030.

¶12

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE OFFICE, KARIYADU, VAPPALASERRY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683111.

¶13

3 THE SUB REGISTRARS OFFICE, CHENGAMANADU, ALUVA, PIN-683578.

¶14

4 THE ADMINISTRATOR, (IN THE MATTER OF APPLE A DAY PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.), APPLE TOWERS, N H BYE PASS, NEAR PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN, PIN-682017.

¶15

SRI KP HARISH, SR GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).12708/2020(K), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.12685 OF 2020(I) &

¶18

WP(C).No.12708 OF 2020(K) 2

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶22

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1942

¶23

WP(C).No.12708 OF 2020(K)

¶24

PETITIONER:

¶25

P.THOMAS

¶26

AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.P.V.CHACKO, PADICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NNRA-18, LANE 4, NETAJI NAGAR, EDAPPALLY-682024.

¶27

BY ADV. K.R.SUNIL

¶28

RESPONDENTS:

¶29

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, COCHIN, PIN-682030.

¶30

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NEDUMBASSERY VILLAGE OFFICE, KARIYADU, VAPPALASERRY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683111.

¶31

3 THE SUB REGISTRARS OFFICE, CHENGAMANADU, ALUVA, PIN-683578.

¶32

4 THE ADMINISTRATOR, (IN THE MATTER OF APPEAL A DAY PROPERTIES PVT.LTD.), APPLE TOWERS, N.H.BYE PASS, NEAR PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN, PIN-682017.

¶33

SRI.BIMAL K. NATH, SR GP

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.10.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).12685/2020(I), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

WP(C).No.12685 OF 2020(I) &

¶36

WP(C).No.12708 OF 2020(K) 3

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

~~~~~~~~

¶39

These petitions are filed by two apartment owners residing in Apple residency Apartment at Nedumbassery being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 2nd respondent in receiving land tax for their undivided share in their respective apartments and for a further direction to issue revenue records. Since both these petitions raise the very same issue, they are taken up and disposed of together with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for both sides.

¶40

The petitioners state that by separate sale deeds executed in their favor on 24.03.2007, copies of which are produced as Exhibit P1 in the respective petitions, they came into undisputed title and possession of Flat No B-9 and Flat No B-11 in Apple residency Apartment at Nedumbassery together with the undivided share in the common property attached to the ownership of the individual apartments. They contend that when they approached the 2nd respondent for remitting land tax and for issuance of possession certificates, the same was refused on the ground that the builder is involved in numerous cases and attachments have been effected in those suits. The 4th respondent is the administrator appointed by the Court to ensure that the interest of the creditors are protected. It is contended by the petitioners that the attachments were all

¶41

WP(C).No.12685 OF 2020(I) &

¶42

WP(C).No.12708 OF 2020(K) 4

¶43

effected much after the purchase of the property by the petitioners herein. It is in the afore circumstances that they have approached this Court seeking for issuance of directions to the 2nd respondent.

¶44

I have heard Sri.K.R. Sunil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.P.Harish, the learned Senior Government Pleader and Sri.Vinod Madhavan, the learned counsel who appeared for the administrator.

¶45

It is submitted by the learned Government pleader that numerous attachments have been effected at the instance of the various courts over the undivided share of various apartment owners. Sri.Vinod Madhavan, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent submitted that the petitioners herein are the original buyers and no attachments were pending as on the date of purchase of the property.

¶46

I have considered the submissions. This Court by Exhibits P4 to P6 judgments have held that inasmuch as the attachments were not effected in respect of the apartments purchased by the petitioners as per Exhibit P1 or their undivided share in the property, the revenue authorities will not be justified in endorsing the said attachments as encumbrances on the petitioners' property. It is apparent that when the property was purchased by the petitioners on 24.3.2007, there were no attachments over the apartment of the undivided share of the petitioners.

¶47

In that view of the matter, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. These petitions are accordingly disposed of with a direction to the 2nd

¶48

WP(C).No.12685 OF 2020(I) &

¶49

WP(C).No.12708 OF 2020(K) 5

¶50

respondent to accept the basic tax in respect of the properties belonging to the petitioners and also to issue the revenue records including the location sketch and possession certificate to them within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and on the petitioners producing the title deeds in respect of the properties.

¶51

These petitions are disposed of.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

Sru

¶56

WP(C).No.12685 OF 2020(I) &

¶57

WP(C).No.12708 OF 2020(K) 6

¶58

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12685/2020

¶59

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶60

EXHIBIT	P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3212/2007 REGISTERED WITH THE CHENGAMANADU SUB REGISTRY OFFICE.
EXHIBIT	P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NON-ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20.7.2011.
EXHIBIT	P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 22.7.2011.
EXHIBIT	P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 18.6.2020.
EXHIBIT	P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C) NO.6331/2019 DATED 1.3.2019.
EXHIBIT	P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C) NO.14327/2019 DATED 24.5.2019.
EXHIBIT	P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C) NO.8217/2019 DATED 1.4.2019.
EXHIBIT	P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C) NO.29236/2019 DATED 19.11.2019.

¶61

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶62

WP(C).No.12685 OF 2020(I) &

¶63

WP(C).No.12708 OF 2020(K) 7

¶64

¶65

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶66

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3212/2007 REGISTERED WITH THE CHENGAMANADU SUB REGISTRY OFFICE. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 18.06.2020. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C)NO.6331/2019 DATED 01.03.2019. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C)NO.14327/2019 DATED 24.05.2019. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.8217/2019 DATED 01.04.2019. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.29236/2019 DATED 19.11.2019.

¶67

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

Varghese Padichaparambil Chacko, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varghese Padichaparambil Chacko, v. the District Collector

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

Akhil O. Vs the District Collector

R.Vijayan Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Sudheer S., Vs the Regional Transport Authority

P.Thomas Vs the District Collector

Janaki Vs Special Tahsildar (L.R)

Vakiyath Koya Vs the Secretary