Allowed

Johny Thomas v. District Collector

Kerala HC10 Nov 2020WP(C)/14347/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner complained the Three Respondents were refusing to accept land tax for Resurvey No.154/2 alleging it was excess land. The Court held Revenue Officers must accept basic tax and issue revenue certificates, noting refusal is without legal basis, though respondents retain rights to initiate separate proceedings to adjudicate excess land claims.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to receive basic tax from the petitioner for Resurvey No.154/2 and issue revenue certificates upon application and remission of fees; ordered this not to hinder efforts to

Johny Thomas Vs District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.14347 OF 2020(P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JOHNY THOMAS, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS(LATE), VADAKEL HOUSE, PADIYOTTCHAL P.O., VAYAKKARA VILALGE, PAYYANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 353.

¶8

BY ADV. SMT.ROSIN JOSEPH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, COLLECTORATE ROAD, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 002.

¶11

2 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, TALUK LAND BOARD, THALIPARAMBA, AND AUTHORIZED OFFICER, LAND TRIBUNAL, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 002.

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

¶13

VILLAGE OFFICE, VAYAKKARA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 511.

¶14

4 TALUK LAND BOARD, THALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 141.

¶15

5 TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 307.

¶16

6 TAHSILDAR, LAND RECORDS, TALUK OFFICE, PAYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 307.

¶17

SRI BIMAL K NATH, SR GP

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No.14347 OF 2020

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner in title and possession of property having an extent of 16 cents comprised in Re Survey Nos.161/17, 161/18 and 154/2 of Vayakkara Village, Kannur District. According to the petitioner, the vendor of the petitioner was remitting tax in respect of the above property and the said fact is evident from Exhibit P4. After purchase of the property as aforesaid, the petitioner approached the revenue authorities and based on his request, Exhibit P5 possession certificate was issued in respect of the entire extent. It is stated that the petitioner has effected mutation in his favour and he has been paying tax for the entire extent of property vide Thandappper No.3160 of Vayakkara village. The grievance of the petitioner is that out of the total extent of 16 cents, the 3rd respondent is presently accepting tax only in respect of property comprised in ReSurvey Nos.161/17 and 161/18 and he is refusing to accept the tax for the property covered under Re-Survey No.154/2 on the ground that it falls under the category of excess land. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court seeking directions to the 3rd respondent to accept land tax from the year 2009 – 2010 onwards for the land in resurvey No. 154/2 and to issue possession Certificate in respect of the said property.

¶23

I have heard Sri. Rosin Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader.

¶24

I have considered the submissions advanced. S.5 of Land Tax Act,

¶25

WP(C).No.14347 OF 2020

¶26

¶27

1961 provides for charge of land tax. The said provision provides that a person in whose name a land is registered, has a bounden duty to pay the tax due under the provisions of the Act and there is a corresponding duty to collect the tax due on a property. When the landholder offers to pay the basic tax due on a land, the Officer entrusted with the duty to collect the same has no authority to refuse it. Furthermore, Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 makes it clear that the summary enquiry under the Rules, is only an arrangement for fiscal purposes and does not affect the legal right of any person in respect of any land covered by the decision in transfer of registry cases.

¶28

In Sawarni (Smt.) v. Inderkaur (Smt.) and Others (1996 KHC

¶29

964), the Supreme Court has held that mutation of property and acceptance of land tax will not, by itself either create or extinguish title, nor has it any presumptive value on title and it only enables the person in whose favour the mutation has been effected to pay land revenue in question.

¶30

The Court in Rajkumar S. and Others v. Tahsildar, Devikulam (2020 (3) KHC 270), Sudan K.K. and Ors. V. State of Kerala and Ors. (2013 (4) KHC 201), George Pothen and Others v. State of Kerala and Others (2018 (4) KHC 7958) and in Larson T. George v. State of Kerala (2018 (5) KHC 960), has also reiterated time and again that a landholder is liable to pay tax and the same is bound to be accepted by the officers.

¶31

The request made by the petitioner to effect mutation was rejected in

¶32

the instant case for the reason that the petitioner is in possession of excess land in respect of the property having an extent of 0.0377 hectares and covered under Re

¶33

WP(C).No.14347 OF 2020

¶34

¶35

Sy No. 154/2 of Vayakkara village. If the respondents come to the conclusion that the property is excess land on the basis of resurvey records, there is no embargo in initiating appropriate proceedings against the petitioner under the relevant provisions of law.

¶36

In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. This petition will stand disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to receive basic tax from the petitioner in respect of the property covered under resurvey No. 154/2 and shall issue revenue certificates on the petitioner submitting application and on remitting the requisite fees. It is made clear that this order shall not stand in the way of the rights of the respondents in initiating appropriate proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

sru

¶41

WP(C).No.14347 OF 2020

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF DATED 30.05.	THE 2008.	SALE DEED NO.1384/2008
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF OF LAND TRIB NO.27099/197	THE UNAL 6.	ORDER DATED 18.09.1976 NO.IV PAYYANNUR IN OA
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF OF LAND TRIB NO.19096/197	THE UNAL 6.	ORDER DATED 24.09.1976 NO.IV PAYYANNUR IN OA
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF FOR THE YEAR	THE 2006	BASIC LAND TAX RECEIPT -07 DATED 05.10.2006.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF OF EXT.P1 PR DATED 17.12.	THE OPERT 2008.	POSSESSION CERTIFICATE Y HELD BY THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF ENCUMBRANCE THE PETITION	THE ON EX ER.	CERTIFICATE OF T.P1 PROPERTY HELD BY
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF 17.12.2008.	THE	TAX RECEIPT DATED
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF 29.10.2019.	THE	BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESP	THE ONDEN	INTIMATION LETTER FROM T DATED 20.05.2019.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF 06.07.2019 M RESPONDENT.	THE ADE B	REPRESENTATION DATED EFORE THE 1ST
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF FROM THE 2ND	THE RESP	LETTER DATED 21.08.2019 ONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF	THE	CHALAN DATED 21.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF 04.02.2020.	THE	REPRESENTATION DATED
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF 14.02.2020.	THE	REPLY LETTER DATED