Allowed

S.Anver v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Mar 2022WP(C)/29005/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged refusal by Village Officer to remit land tax despite registered ownership. Court held that registered owners cannot be barred from paying tax while property remains registered; tax payment is fiscal, not an attribute of ownership, pending final outcome of any enquiry.

What did the court decide?

Directed Village Officer to allow petitioner to remit land tax on the property, subject to statutory requirements and pending outcome of any potential enquiry.

S.Anver Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 29005 OF 2018

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

S.ANVER AGED 52 YEARS S/O SHAHUL HAMEED ANVAR, 12/758, MAHIJA MANZIL, ILAKAMON, AYIROOR, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 310 BY ADV DENIZEN KOMATH

¶6

RESPONDENTS:

¶7

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶8

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695036

¶9

3 SURVEY DIRECTOR OFFICE OF SURVEY DIRECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035

¶10

4 REGIONAL SURVEY JOINT DIRECTOR OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL SURVEY JOINT DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001

¶11

5 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 043

¶12

6 TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶13

7 VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, VEYILOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695024

¶14

8 SASEENDRAN, MARAIKAVILAKATH HOUSE, EDAVILAYAR, VEYILOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001

¶15

WP(C) NO. 29005 OF 2018

¶16

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI.K.M.FAIZAL.G.P.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) NO. 29005 OF 2018

¶21

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The petitioner says that he has purchased the property involved in this case through Ext.P1 and that consequent thereto, the transfer of its Registry was effected in his favour, leading to permission being granted to remit land tax from 2009 upto 2016-17. He has produced Ext.P2 Tax Receipt in substantiation and alleges that subsequent thereto, without citing any reason, the Village Officer has refused permission to remit land tax. He, therefore, prays that the 7 th respondent – Village Officer, be directed to allow him to remit land tax on the property in question, without any further delay.

¶24

2 . The afore submissions of Smt.Mereena Joseph, learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered by the learned Senior Government Pleader – Sri.K.M.Faisal, arguing that 7 th respondent has now received reliable information that the property covered by Ext.P1 illegally takes in certain Government land also. He, however, conceded that the transfer of Registry of the property has already been effected in favour of the petitioner, but argued that this was in error and that the competent Authorities are now proposing to take necessary action to cancel the same, with respect to the area which has been classified as 'Government Puramboke'.

¶25

WP(C) NO. 29005 OF 2018

¶26

¶27

3 . Even when I hear Sri.Faisal as afore, it is now well settled

¶28

by the judgments of this Court and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that as long as the property is registered in the name of its owner, no interdiction can be caused to him for remitting land tax thereon. This is because, payment of land tax is only a fiscal matter and not an attribute of ownership per se .

¶29

4 . Obviously, therefore, if any of the competent Authorities find cause against the petitioner or the property covered by Ext.P1, they are at liberty to initiate necessary action and complete it; however, following due procedure. Pending this, however, he cannot be refused permission to remit land tax on the property and it must be permitted, subject to the final outcome of any such enquiry. This is more so because even going by the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, no action has yet been initiated against the petitioner or the property covered by Ext.P1 and it is only a suspicion, which has been impelled at the Bar.

¶30

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the 7 th respondent to allow the petitioner to remit land tax on the property in question, which shall be accepted and an apposite tax receipt issued, subject to all other statutory requirements being

¶31

WP(C) NO. 29005 OF 2018

¶32

¶33

complied with.

¶34

As far as the entitlement of the official respondents to proceed against the property covered by Ext.P1 is concerned, I leave full liberty to them to do so, without entering into the merits of any other rival contentions; and should such end to the detriment of the petitioner or his property, necessary consequential action can also be completed; however, following due procedure and after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to him at every stage.

¶35

sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶36

¶37

WP(C) NO. 29005 OF 2018

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29005/2018

¶40

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING NO. 705/2009 OF S.R.0. MURIKKUMPUZHA.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2016 - 2017.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24.04.2017 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTIMATION RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27.05.2017
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 31.10.2015 VIDE REF. NO. A1/715/15
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTRACT OF MUTATION REGISTRY PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY, WITH THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED B Y THE 7TH RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR SEEKING A COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO. B19/45603/17 DATED 26.02.2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF HEAD SURVEYOR OF 6TH RESPONDENT TALUK DATED 20.09.2017.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 03.10.2017 BEARING REF. NO. H3-32643/16 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT TAHSILDAR.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-10-2018 ISSUED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT

¶41

WP(C) NO. 29005 OF 2018

¶42

¶43

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/12/2018 IN CCC NO.2112/2018 EXHIBIT P13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 12/4/2019 EXHIBIT P14 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 25/4/2019 EXHIBIT P15 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTIMATIONS ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT VIDE REFERENCE NUMBER H3-32643/2016 DATED 13/5/2019

S.Anver v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Anver 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

Mohanan.S., Vs State of Kerala

Jose George Vs State of Kerala

Tulsi Developers India Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

Jayakumar T. S. Vs Biju Prabhakara, IAS

Ponamma, Vs the Tahsildar

Arakkachal Narayanan Vs State of Kerala