Allowed

Ramakrishnan v. the Village Officer

Kerala HC24 Jan 2022WP(C)/421/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a refusal by the Village Officer to accept land tax remittance, relying on prior tax receipts and alleging non-involvement in a referenced partition suit judgment. The court held that the partition suit judgment did not bind non-parties.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the decision in Ext.P6 is set aside; the Village Officer is directed to permit the petitioners to remit land tax within two weeks, pending any future decree accordingly.

Ramakrishnan Vs the Village Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 4TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 421 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 RAMAKRISHNAN

¶8

AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.KARIKKA, PARAMBINKAVIL, THRITHALA, PATTAMBI - 679 534.

¶9

2ABDUL BASHEER
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED, THOTTUNGAL, PALLIPURAM, KIZHAYUR, PATTAMBI - 679
303.
3MUJEEB ABDUL RAHMAN
AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED, THOTTUNGAL, PALLIPURAM, KIZHAYUR, PATTAMBI - 679
303.
BY ADVS.
S.SUJIN
KEERTHI M.
ARJUN RAJA P.C.
AKSHAY VENU

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE VILLAGE OFFICER THRITHALA VILLAGE, THRITHALA P.O., PALAKKAD PONNANI RD, THRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, KERALA - 679 534.

¶12

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 678 001.

¶13

SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY SR.G.P.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

W.P.(C) No. 421 of 2022

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 24th day of January, 2022 .

¶19

The petitioners say that they are the owners of the

¶20

extents of property involved in this case. They rely on Ext.P1 Sale Deed and Ext.P2 “Janmam Assignment Deed” in substantiation; and, on the strength of Exts.P3 and P4, assert that they were permitted to remit land tax on it uninterruptedly, till 2018.

¶21

The petitioners allege that, in 2021, when they approached the 1^st respondent – Village Officer, for permission to remit land tax, said Authority refused to accede to the same, stating that a lawyer’s notice has been received in his office, in which there is a statement

¶22

¶23

W.P.(C) No. 421 of 2022

¶24

regarding a judgment delivered by the learned Sub Judge, Ottapalam on 25.01.2018 in O.S.No.375 of 2012, with respect to the said property.

¶25

The petitioners say that the aforesaid judgment has been produced on record as Ext.P6, which would ineluctably show that they were not parties to the same, nor involved in the said lis in any manner; and, therefore, pray that the first respondent – Village Officer be directed to permit them to remit land tax on the property forthwith.

¶26

Sri.S.Sujin – learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, added to the afore saying that, in a similar set of circumstances and facts, this Court has delivered judgment in W.P. (C)No.29126 of 2020 on 23.09.2021, wherein, after noticing Ext.P6 judgment, it was held that unless a competent Court declares title over the property

¶27

¶28

W.P.(C) No. 421 of 2022

¶29

in favour of another person or finds the said person to be in its continuous possession, the request of the petitioners cannot be denied. He, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that this writ petition be allowed.

¶30

The learned Senior Government Pleader – Smt.K.Amminikutty, affirmed that this Court has already delivered judgment in W.P.(C)No.29126 of 2020, as stated by Sri.S.Sujin; but argued that since Ext.P6 judgment relates to the same survey number as involved in this case, the Village Officer has been incapacitated from taking any further action. She, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶31

I must say that I cannot find favour with the afore submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader, because, as long as the petitioners are not parties to Ext.P6 judgment, and until such time it is

¶32

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 421 of 2022

¶34

established through a process of law that the properties claimed by them are in any manner involved therein, I fail to understand how the Village Officer could have refused to accept the land tax. This is more so because, Ext.P6 has arisen from a partition suit between the parties therein and perspicuously, therefore, none of the findings or declarations in it can bind anyone else, including the petitioners herein.

¶35

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P6; with a consequential direction to the first respondent – Village Officer, allow the petitioners to remit land tax on the properties in question covered by Exts.P1 and P2 documents, de hors Ext.P6 judgment. This shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶36

I, however, make it clear that the afore directions

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C) No. 421 of 2022

¶39

will abide by any judgment or decree to be obtained by any person from a competent Civil Court, in which the title of the petitioners is appropriately challenged and found against them.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶42

Raj/31.01.2022.

¶43

¶44

W.P.(C) No. 421 of 2022

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 421/2022

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶47

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO.3283/2009 IN SRO, THRITHALA.
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE JENMOM ASSIGNMENT
DEED NO.5267/1/12 IN SRO, THRITHALA.
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
DATED 7/5/2014 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE
1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
DATED 8/11/2018 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF
THE 2ND AND 3RD PETITIONERS.

¶48

Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYERS NOTICE DATED
NIL.
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
25/1/2018 OF THE COURT OF SUBORDINATE
JUDGE, OTTAPALAM IN OS.NO.375/2012.
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
23/09/2021 IN WP(C) NO.29126 OF 2020.

Ramakrishnan v. the Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishnan v. the Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivasankaran, Vs State of Kerala

K.Rajan Vs State of Kerala

Nisar Rahim Vs the District Collector

Abdul Salim Vs National Highway Authority of India

K.A. Anwar Vs Lalithambika

St.Joseph Public School Vs National Highway Authority of India