Allowed

Maniyappan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jan 2022WP(C)/10943/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed by Maniyappan regarding his inability to remit land tax due to objections by the Tahsildar. The Court directed the Tahsildar to dispose of the application for tax remittance expeditiously. The judgment ensures that the competent authority considers claims and conducts necessary surveys before deciding.

What did the court decide?

The Tahsildar is directed to dispose of the petitioner's application for remittal of land tax within three months of receiving a copy of the judgment.

Maniyappan Vs State of Kerala — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 13TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 10943 OF 2017

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MANIYAPPAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHAN, CHAPRAYIL HOUSE, THURUTHUMMEL MURI, CHEMBU VILLAGE, VAIKOM TALUK.

¶8

BY ADV SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM- 686 001.

¶12

3 THE TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM TALUK OFFICE, VAIKOM -686146.

¶13

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHMEBU VILLAGE OFFICE, CHEMBU.P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, PIN-686 146.

¶14

SMT.MABLE .C.KURIAN, SR.G.P.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 10943 OF 2017

¶17

-2-

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner claims to be the owner of an extent of 1.62 Ares of land, comprised of in Sy.No.77/5 of 'Chembu Village' and he stakes ownership to the same through Ext.P1 document.

¶20

The petitioner alleges that, however, when he

¶21

attempted to remit land tax on the property in

¶22

question, it was objected to by the 3^rd respondent – Tahsildar, by issuing Ext.P2 proceedings dated

¶23

13.01.2015, saying that the tax on the land claimed by him is already assessed and being paid by others; and therefore, that unless a re-survey of the entire property is conducted, his request cannot be acceded to.

¶24

Sri.N.Asok Kumar – learned counsel for the

¶25

petitioner, further explained his client's case saying that, as is evident from Ext.P1, he had obtained a valid title over 1.62 Ares of land aforementioned and, therefore, that the competent Authority was obligated

¶26

to consider his request for payment of land tax

¶27

WP(C) NO. 10943 OF 2017

¶28

-3-

¶29

thereon, after verifying the land records,

¶30

particularly the fact that his predecessor–in-interest had been remitted land tax on a larger extent, which

¶31

includes the one claimed by him. He, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that the 3^rd respondent be

¶32

directed to allow his client to remit land tax on the property covered by Ext.P1, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶33

However, in response, Smt.Mable C.Kurian –

¶34

learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that, as luculent from Ext.P1, even the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner did not have a 'Thandaper' with respect to the property in question assigned in his favour. She submitted that, therefore, as stated in Ext.P2, unless a proper re-survey is conducted, the petitioner's request will not be able to be acceded to.

¶35

When I evaluate the afore submissions, there

¶36

can be little doubt that the petitioner claims title and ownership over the property in question on the strength of Ext.P1. Obviously, therefore, if there are

¶37

WP(C) NO. 10943 OF 2017

¶38

-4-

¶39

any other claims on the property in question, the same will require to be assessed by the competent Authority in terms of law, particularly under the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act; but cannot defer such action ad infinitum, waiting for a re-survey to be conducted in future.

¶40

In the afore perspective, I am certain that

¶41

the petitioner is entitled to relief, to the limited extent as I presently propose.

¶42

For the reasons above, I order this writ petition and direct the 3^rd respondent – Tahsildar, to take up the application of the petitioner, seeking permission to remit land tax on the property covered by Ext.P1, and dispose of the same, after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to him, as also to any other person who may be claiming title or possession over the same; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶43

WP(C) NO. 10943 OF 2017

¶44

-5-

¶45

Needless to sa y, since Ext.P2 proceedings mention that certain others are already paying land tax with respect to the property in question, the competent Authority will be obligated to consider such claims, juxtaposed by the documents to be produced by such persons, and if required, to cause necessary inspection and survey as is warranted in law, so as to finally lead to an order on the petitioner's

¶46

application within the afore time frame.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶49

akv

¶50

WP(C) NO. 10943 OF 2017

¶51

-6-

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10943/2017

¶53

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶54

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 3217/1991 OF SUB REGISTRY VAIKOM

¶55

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF 3RD RESPONDENT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 13.1.2015

¶56

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED

¶57

25.10.2016 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶58

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 10.11.2016 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶59

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 9.2.2017 ISSUED BY PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF 3RD RESPONDENT

¶60

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

¶61

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

Maniyappan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maniyappan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palempadiyan Alavi Vs the State of Kerala

Soumini Ravikumar Vs the Superintendent of Police

Thankappan Vs the Superintendent of Resurveys Office,Ernakulam

K. Manikandan Vs Renugaj, IAS

Vanditha Mani Nambiar Vs Village Officer

Naseera, Vs Land Tribunal