Allowed

C. Niranjanam v. the District Collector

Kerala HC3 Mar 2022WP(C)/3749/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition filed to compel the Tahsildar to reconsider survey records as per the Sub Collector's order (Ext.P6), which directed a reconsideration after the Tahsildar initially rejected the request. The court allowed the petition and directed the third respondent to reconsider the matter within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to reconsider the matter as per the Sub Collector's order within one month.

C. Niranjanam Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 3749 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

C. NIRANJANAM, T. C. 8/838, SAIKRIPA, HOUSE NO.1, ARAYALLOOR, ELLUVILA NAGAR, NEAR POST OFFICE, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

B.S.SWATHI KUMAR ANITHA RAVINDRAN HARISANKAR N UNNI SARANGADHARAN P.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶11

2 THE SUB COLLECTOR/REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶12

3 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAKKAKAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 023.

¶13

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 006.

¶14

SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SR.G.P.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 3749 OF 2022

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioner asserts that she is entitled to have the survey records corrected with respect to her property in terms of Ext.P6 order of the Sub Collector and alleges that, in spite of the fact that the said order was issued as early as on 04.05.2021, the Tahsildar (Land Records) has not taken any further action.

¶20

Smt.Anitha Ravindran, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the correction as requested by her client is now imperative because, without the same, she is being incapacitated from remitting land tax on the property owned by her; and therefore, prayed that action in terms of Ext.P6 be directed to be completed by the Tahsildar (Land Records), within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶21

In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader - Smt.K.Amminikutty, submitted that, in Ext.P6, the Sub Collector has only found that Ext.P5 order of the Tahsildar requires to be reconsidered. She submitted that the Sub Collector has not made any affirmative declarations in Ext.P6 and therefore, prayed that, if this Court is inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner, then it may be confined to the

¶22

WP(C) NO. 3749 OF 2022

¶23

¶24

extent of ordering the Tahsildar to take action as per law.

¶25

When I evaluate the afore submissions and examine

¶26

Exts.P5 and P6, it is without doubt that, at the first instance, the Tahsildar had rejected the petitioner's request saying that the property involved is a “Road Puramboke”. However, in Ext.P6, the Sub Collector has found otherwise, particularly with specific reference to the survey numbers involved and has thus directed the Tahsildar to reconsider the matter.

¶27

Obviously, therefore, the Tahsildar is now obligated to reconsider the matter as per the directions in Ext.P6 and to that extent, I am certain that the petitioner is justified in having approached this Court.

¶28

Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and direct the third respondent – Tahsildar, to reconsider the matter as ordered in Ext.P6, adverting to Ext.P4, and after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as also for producing necessary documents in substantiation of her plea; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶29

Once the afore exercise is completed and if it ends to

¶30

WP(C) NO. 3749 OF 2022

¶31

¶32

the benefit of the petitioner, then she will be at liberty to produce the resultant order before the Village Officer, who will, thereafter, allow her to remit land tax on the property as found therein without any avoidable delay thereafter.

¶33

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

stu

¶36

WP(C) NO. 3749 OF 2022

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3749/2022

¶39

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶40

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2152 DATED 13.07.1992 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, CHALA.

¶41

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED WILL NO.73/92 DATED 13.07.1992 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, SASTHAMANGALAM.

¶42

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 30.08.2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶43

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.771/19 DATED 20.07.2019 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶44

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LRM 7/27908/19/K.DIS. DATED 24.03.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶45

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2 2171/2020 DATED 4.5.2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

C. Niranjanam v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Niranjanam 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syam Kumar Vs the District Collector

M.Ahammed, Vs Abbas N.P.

Abdulla Kunhi Vs State of Kerala

Beena Kannath Raphy Vs Tahsildar

P.R.Danavan Vs Aniyamma Varghese.K.

T.C. Thomas, Vs the Secretary