Disposed

Santhakumari.B v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Nov 2020WP(C)/18550/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, claiming ownership of certain properties, sought a writ directing the 4th respondent to accept land tax despite allegations of excess land possession. The Court held that officers cannot refuse tax and directed the 4th respondent to receive the basic tax while reserving rights to resume excess land.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent to receive basic tax from the petitioner regarding specified properties upon submission of application and remitting requisite fees.

Santhakumari.B Vs State of Kerala — 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

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.18550 OF 2020(P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SANTHAKUMARI.B, W/O PURUSHOTHAMAN.K.K, KAIMAPARAMBIL HOUSE, SOUTH NADA P.O.KODUNGALLUR, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695001

¶11

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, IRINJALAKUDA, PIN-680121.

¶12

3 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, (CEILING RETURN) COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, THIRSSUR-3.

¶13

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PUTHENCHIRA VILLAGE, P.O. PUTHENCHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680682.

¶14

SRI BIMAL K NATH, SR GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.18550 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner states that she is the absolute owner in title and possession of properties having an extent of 288.96 Ares comprised in Survey No.24/1, 8.91 Ares in Sy. No. 26/1, 31.59 Ares in Sy. No. 25/1 and 0.81 Ares is Sy. No. 24/1, 54.63 Ares in Sy. No. 24/1 and 51.80 Ares in Sy. No.24/1-8 of Puthenchira Village which were purchased by three separate deeds vide document Nos. 1643/17, 62/2018 and 92/2019. She states that she has effected mutation in her favour and has been remitting tax as is evident from Exhibit P1 tax receipt.

¶20

It is stated that the 4th respondent issued Ext.P2 letter calling upon the petitioner herein to disclose the details of the property owned by her for the purpose of initiating ceiling proceedings as she was found in possession of excess land. It is stated that later Ext.P4 notice was issued to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent. In obedience to the said notice, the petitioner appeared before the 3rd respondent and submitted the details of the property. Her grievance is that no follow up action was initiated by the respondents. When all her attempts failed, the petitioner is stated to have submitted Ext.P6 application before the 2nd respondent seeking to receive land tax in respect of the properties. When no action was taken, she has approached this Court seeking

¶21

WP(C).No.18550 OF 2020

¶22

¶23

the following reliefs:

¶24

i) issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 4th respondent to accept land tax from the petitioner in respect of the properties comprised in Survey Number 24/1, 25/1, 26/1 and in 24/1-8 covered by Document No.1643/2017 dt.26.12.2017, Document No.62/2018 dt.12.1.2018 and Document No.92/2019 dt.25.1.2019 in the interest of justice.

¶25

ii) issue a writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to urgently consider and pass orders on Exhibit P6 application in the interest of justice.

¶26

I have heard Sri. Shaju Purushothaman, the learned counsel

¶27

appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Bimal K Nath, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶28

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

¶29

WP(C).No.18550 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

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

¶32

KHC 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.

¶33

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.

¶34

If the petitioner is in possession of excess land, the respondents can very well initiate appropriate proceedings against her invoking the provisions of the Land Reforms Act or any other relevant statute. However, that would not enable the respondents to refuse to accept land tax.

¶35

In that view of the matter, this petition will stand disposed of directing the 4th respondent to receive basic tax from the petitioner in respect of the properties covered in survey numbers 24/1, 25/1, 26/1 and 24/1-8 covered by document Nos. 1643 of 2017 dated 26.12.2017, 62/2018 dated 12.1.2018 and 92/2019 dated 25.1.2019 on the petitioner submitting application and on

¶36

WP(C).No.18550 OF 2020

¶37

¶38

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 to resume the excess land, if any, possessed by the petitioner in accordance with

¶39

law.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

DSV

¶44

WP(C).No.18550 OF 2020

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DAT.19.2018. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 27.03.2018. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24.9.2018. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18.1.2019. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.10.2019. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 2.6.2020. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 2.6.2020.

¶49

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶50

//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Santhakumari.B v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhakumari.B 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayaprasad Pillai Vs the District Collector

P.Rajan Vs the State of Kerala

Annamma Joseph Vs the District Superintendent of Police

Sunil C.K. Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Palliveettil Abdu Rahiman Vs District Collector

Abdul Nazar Vs District Collelctor