Disposed

Santhosh v. the District Collector

Kerala HC4 Nov 2020WP(C)/17294/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner sought a direction to a Village Officer to accept land tax over property where his title was declared by a civil court decree. The Kerala High Court held that pending legal proceedings do not justify refusal to collect revenue, directing the officer to accept the tax within four weeks, subject to the finality of a pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to accept tax from the petitioner in respect of the property covered under the civil decree within four weeks.

Santhosh Vs the 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.17294 OF 2020(J)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SANTHOSH, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. N. TITUS, KANJIRAMVILA THEKKETHIL, KARIKUZHY, PADAPPAKKARA P. O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J PANICKER

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶11

KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶12

2 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶13

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAVANA VILLAGE, MULAVANA, KUNDARA, KOLLAM - 691 501.

¶14

4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD DIVISION OFFICE, CHINNAKAKADA, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶15

R4 BY SRI.K.DENNY DEVASSY, SC, K.S.H.B.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.17294 OF 2020

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner in title and possession of property having an extent of 58.64 Ares comprised in ReSurvey No.356/12 of Mulavana Village. When the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 refused to accept land tax on the ground that the land possessed forms part of excess land, he approached the Civil Court and instituted O.S. No.423 of 2014. The learned Principal Munsiff, by Ext.P2 judgment dated 22.11.2019, declared the right, title and possession of the petitioner over the scheduled properties and the defendants were injuncted from interfering with his rights. The petitioner approached the respondents 2 and 3 and produced the decree and requested for receiving the land tax. When no action was taken, he has approached this Court seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to accept land tax in respect of the property covered under the decree.

¶21

I have heard Sri. Saju J Panicker, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.K.Denny Devassy, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶22

Sri. K. Denny Devassy, the learned standing counsel

¶23

WP(C).No.17294 OF 2020

¶24

¶25

appearing for the 4th respondent submits that against the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff, the 4th respondent has preferred an appeal which is pending.

¶26

I have considered the submissions advanced. Ext.P2 decree would show that the civil court has declared the right, title and possession of the petitioner over the property having an extent of 58.64 Ares comprised in Re-sy. No. 356/12. There is no case for the respondents that the appellate court has granted any stay of proceedings. As held by this Court in Sudan K.K and others v. State of Kerala and Others [2013 (4) KHC 201], Vijayarajan M.D v. Tahsildar and Others [2013 KHC 2764] and Rajkumar S and Others v. Tahsildar, Devikulam and Others [2020 (3) KHC 270], collection of revenue is for fiscal purposes and the refusal of tax by revenue officials on the premise of some pending enquiry or some dispute as to title is an abdication of duty.

¶27

In that view of the matter, there is no justification on the part of the respondents 2 and 3 in refusing to accept property tax. There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to accept tax from the petitioner in respect of the property covered under Ext.P2 decree. The needful shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the same shall be subject to the

¶28

WP(C).No.17294 OF 2020

¶29

¶30

result of the appeal filed by the 4th respondent against the judgment and

¶31

decree of the learned Munsiff.

¶32

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶33

SD/-

¶34

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

¶37

WP(C).No.17294 OF 2020

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.08.2017 IN WP(C) 29989 OF 2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶42

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS 423 OF 2014 OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19.02.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶43

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24.03.2020 GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶44

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶45

NIL

¶46

//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE

Santhosh v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indusind Bank Ltd., Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer

K.Jayan Vs the District Collector

M. Nazeerudeen Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

K. Velayudhan Vs Regional Transport Officer

Akshay Kumar, Vs the Thasildar, Meenachil Thaluk

P.M.Vijayan Vs the Secretary