Allowed

Ayana Charitable Trust v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Nov 2022WP(C)/11515/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Kerala directed respondents to accept land tax from petitioners on the condition that they place documents showing the name change from predecessor owner. Orders must be issued within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The Court has directed the petitioners to place necessary documents showing the change of name of the owner of the property; respondents are directed to accept tax and issue receipts or issue proceedi

Ayana Charitable Trust Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 11515 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1AYANA CHARITABLE TRUST
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS GOSPEL FOR ASIA) MANJADI P.O,
THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY SMT. SINY PUNNOOSE,
MANAGING TRUSTEE AND CHIEF FUNCTIONARY THROUGH HER
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE CHURCH JACOB POTHEN, AGED 65,
S/O. LATE T.K. POTHEN, THERADIYIL HOUSE,
NIRANAM WEST MURI, NIRANAM VILLAGE,
THIRUVALLA TALUK - 689101.
2SMT. SINY PUNNOOSE,
AGED 56 YEARS
W/O. K.N. PUNNOOSE, KADAPPILARIL, KUTTAPPUZHA P.O,
THIRUVALLA, KUTTAPPUZHA S.O, PATHANAMTHITTA,
PIN - 689103, MANAGING TRUSTEE AND CHIEF FUNCTIONARY
REPRESENTED THROUGH HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND
GENERAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CHURCH JACOB POTHEN, AGED
65, S/O. LATE T.K. POTHEN, THERADIYIL HOUSE, NIRANAM
WEST MURI, NIRANAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK - 689101.
BY ADVS.
P.HARIDAS
SHIJIMOL M.MATHEW
P.C.SHIJIN
RISHIKESH HARIDAS
BIJU HARIHARAN

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

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

¶9

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001.

¶10

3 TAHSILDAR KANJIRAPPALLY, TALUK OFFICE, KANJIRAPPALLY, 1ST FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM - KUMILY ROAD,

¶11

WP(C) NO. 11515 OF 2022

¶12

¶13

KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686555.

¶14

4 VILLAGE OFFICER, ERUMELI SOUTH, ERUMELI SOUTH VILLAGE OFFICE, ERUMELI, PIN:-

¶15

5 VILLAGE OFFICER, MANIMALA, MANIMALA VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686544.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO. 11515 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Admit. Special Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.

¶21

The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to accept land tax for the properties covered by Exts.P1 to P3 from the petitioners. The 1^st petitioner claims to be a religious trust. The properties were purchased as per Ext.P1 on 01.08.2005. It is submitted that mutation was effected and tax was paid. Ext.P2 is the tax receipt dated 13.08.2007. Ext.P2 shows the name of the trust as ‘Gospel for Asia’. There have been several litigations regarding the right of the petitioners over the estate. Disputes are primarily between the State Government and the petitioners. The issues were finally settled by several judgments of this Court and that of the Supreme Court and the effect of the decisions is that the State Government will have to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of their title. It is submitted that a

¶22

¶23

WP(C) NO. 11515 OF 2022

¶24

civil suit has already been filed and the same is pending. The contention of the petitioners is that, there is no reason to deny permission to the petitioners to pay the tax, pending the civil suit. It is trite law that effecting mutation or acceptance of tax is only for fiscal purposes and will not amount to declaration of a title in favour of the person who is paying the tax or in whose favour the mutation has been effected. It is submitted that, even if tax is accepted that will not in any way affect the right of the State if ultimately they succeed in the civil suit.

¶25

The Special Government Pleader on instructions submits that, the only objection that appears to be now stated is that the present petitioners who claim that they were formerly known as ‘Gospel for Asia’ have not submitted necessary documents to show the change of name before the authorities. According to the petitioners, all the necessary papers had been placed before the respondents. I do not think it is necessary for this Court to decide on the said aspect.

¶26

¶27

WP(C) NO. 11515 OF 2022

¶28

This writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to place necessary documents to show the change of name of the owner of the property from ‘Gospel for Asia’ to the present petitioners’ name. The respondents 4 and 5 on receipt of the aforesaid documents shall proceed to accept tax from the petitioners and issue necessary receipts. In case the respondents 4 and 5 are not convinced about the change of name, necessary documents shall be issued in the name of the previous owner ‘Gospel for Asia’. Orders shall be issued within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶29

Sd/T.R.RAVI JUDGE

¶30

¶31

WP(C) NO. 11515 OF 2022

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:-

¶35

`Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF` `2329/2005 DAT`	`THE SALE DEED NO.` `ED 01.08.2005.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF` `13.08.2017 OF`	`THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED` `ERUMELI VILLAGE.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF` `13.08.2007 OF`	`THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED` `MANIMALA VILLAGE.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF` `B8/12633/2005`	`THE ORDER NO.` `DATED 11.12.2008.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF` `BY THE REVENU` `KOTTAYAM DATE`	`ORDER NO. 5679/2008 PASSED` `E DIVISIONAL OFFICER,` `D 19.06.2009.`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF` `COLLECTOR DAT`	`THE ORDER OF THE DISTRICT` `ED 05.02.2010.`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF` `WP(C) NO. 308` `30.06.2011.`	`THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN` `50 OF 2007 DATED`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF` `R.P.NO. 676/2` `32628/2007 AN` `06.01.2012.`	`THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN` `011 IN WP(C) NO.` `D OTHER CASES DATED`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF` `7379/2012 DAT`	`THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.` `ED 28.02.2013.`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF` `OP(C) NO. 298`	`THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN` `9/2011 DATED 09.09.2013.`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE COPY OF` `THIS HON'BLE` `AND CONNECTED`	`THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN` `COURT IN W.A. NO. 239/2016` `CASES DATED 11.04.2018.`
`Exhibit P12`	`TRUE COPY OF` `HON'BLE APEX` `PETITION S.L.` `DATED 17.09.2`	`THE JUDGMENT OF THE` `COURT IN SPECIAL LEAVE` `P NO. 24028-24035/2018` `018.`
`Exhibit P13`	`TRUE COPY OF` `RESPONDENT DA`	`THE REPLY OF THE 1ST` `TED 06.01.2020.`
`Exhibit P14`	`TRUE COPY OF` `ADDRESSED TO` `03.02.2020.`	`THE COVERING LETTER` `RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 DATED`
`Exhibit P15`	`TRUE COPY OF` `G.O(MS) NO. 1` `18.06.2020.`	`THE GOVERNMENT ORDER` `58/2020/RD DATED`
`Exhibit P16`	`TRUE COPY OF` `HON'BLE COURT`	`THE JUDGMENT OF THIS` `IN WP(C) NO. 13332/2020`

¶36

WP(C) NO. 11515 OF 2022

¶37

¶38

Exhibit P17

¶39

DATED 16.10.2020.
TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT TO
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 03.03.2022.

¶40

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:- NIL

Ayana Charitable Trust v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayana Charitable Trust 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

K.v.Surendran Vs the District Collector,Kannur

Mathi .T.Alias Madhavi T. Vs the District Collector

Calvary Heights Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Saraswathi Navada, Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies(General)

Muhammed Shafi Vs the Special Tahasildar

L.C.Khadeeja Vs the District Collector