Allowed

Pushpalatha S Jain v. the District Collector

Kerala HC14 Jan 2022WP(C)/491/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the refusal to issue Possession Certificates and allow land tax remittance. The Court directed the Village Officer to issue certificates and allow tax remittance within two weeks, clarifying this order does not impede the State's future right to seek recovery via a Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Directed 3rd Respondent to allow petitioners to remit land tax and issue Possession Certificates within two weeks of receiving a copy of the judgment.

Pushpalatha S Jain 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

FRIDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 24TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 491 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 PUSHPALATHA S JAIN AGED 71 YEARS W/O LATE M P SANTHI VARMA JAIN, KALYANA MANDIRAM, MUTTIL NORTH VILLAGE, KALPETTA NORTH P O, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673122.

¶8

2 SUSHENA DEVI. AGED 49 YEARS D/O LATE M P SANTHI VARMA JAIN, KALYANA MANDIRAM, MUTTIL NORTH VILLAGE, KALPETTA NORTH P O, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673122.

¶9

3 SIDDHARTHA DEVI AGED 38 YEARS D/O LATE M P SANTHI VARMA JAIN, KALYANA MANDIRAM, MUTTIL NORTH VILLAGE, KALPETTA NORTH P O, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673122.

¶10

4 PAVITHRA AGED 41 YEARS W/O SREEMANDARA VARMA JAIN, KALYANA MANDIRAM, MUTTIL NORTH VILLAGE, KALPETTA NORTH P O, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673122.

¶11

5 BHARATH P A. AGED 21 YEARS S/O ANOOP P.P & SUSHENA DEVI, JAYAKUMARI ESTATE MNADAKKAMALA P O, KOTTATHARA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN673121.

¶12

BY ADVS. JACOB SEBASTIAN K.V.WINSTON ANU JACOB

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAIRALI NAGAR, KALPETTA P O, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673122.

¶15

WP(C) NO. 491 OF 2022 2

¶16

2 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS) VYTHIRI, VYTHIRI TALUK OFFICE, VYTHIRI P O, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673576.

¶17

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KOTTATHARA VILLAGE, KOTTATHARA VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTATHARA P O, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673122.

¶18

4 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SRI.RAJITH SPL.G.P.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C) NO. 491 OF 2022 3

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioners say that they purchased the properties involved in this case through Exts.P7 to P10, but that when they presented the same before the 3^rd respondent - Village Officer for remittance of land tax and for issuance of Possession Certificates, it has been rejected by the Tahsildar through Exts.P11 and P12 citing untenable objections. The petitioners, therefore, pray that Exts.P11 and P12 be set aside and the Village Officer be directed to allow them to remit land tax on the properties and that he be ordered to issue Possession Certificates, as requested by them.

¶25

When this matter was called today, Shri.Jacob Sebastian - learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that, in fact, as is evident from Exts.P1 to P5, the land tax with respect to the properties has already been accepted from his clients in the year 2021 and therefore, that refusal of the Village Officer to allow them to continue to do so in future or to issue Possession Certificates is illegal and unlawful. He, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that said Authority be directed to do so without any further delay.

¶26

WP(C) NO. 491 OF 2022 4

¶27

The afore submissions of the petitioners were vehemently opposed by Shri.Rajith - learned Special Government Pleader, saying that the properties in question were originally part of an Estate, which was owned by a Company by name East India Company and that the State intends to file a suit to recover the entire extent. He submitted that it is in such circumstances

¶28

that the petitioners' request for issuance of Possession Certificates has been refused by the competent respondent. He then added that since the attempt of the petitioners is to cut and remove the trees from the Estate on the strength of their Possession Certificates and since such action is contrary to the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the Village Officer thought it better not to accede to it.

¶29

However, after saying as afore, the learned Special Government Pleader conceded, to a pointed question from this Court, that no legal action has yet

¶30

been taken by the State or any of the functionaries against the properties in question for its resumption or for recovery, through a competent Civil Court. His

¶31

WP(C) NO. 491 OF 2022 5

¶32

only contention was that they intend to do so in future.

¶33

It is thus evident that, on one hand, the

¶34

petitioners' claim exclusive rights over the properties in question; while, on the other, the State says that they intend to file a suit for its recovery, based on

¶35

their contention that assignments by the afore

¶36

mentioned East India Company were in error. The official respondents, of course, have also a case that

¶37

since the properties are enjoying exemption under Section 81E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, cutting of trees therefrom is prohibited. However, I fail to understand how the official respondents can refuse issuance of Possession Certificates for the afore reasons because if there is any violation of law by the petitioners on its strength, certainly necessary consequences shall have to follow and if the land is ordered to be resumed in future by a competent Civil Court, they will be bound by the same, subject to their available remedies.

¶38

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ

¶39

petition and direct the 3^rd respondent – Village

¶40

WP(C) NO. 491 OF 2022 6

¶41

Officer to allow the petitioners to continue to remit land tax on the properties covered by Exts.P7 to P10 and also to issue them Possession Certificates with

¶42

respect to the same. This shall be done as

¶43

expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶44

I, however, deem it necessary to reiteratingly

¶45

clarify that nothing contained in this judgment will impede the right of the official respondents to proceed against the properties through a Civil Court and they will also be fully enjoined to confirm that any action on the properties by the petitioners is as per law and in compliance of the imperative Statues and

¶46

Regulations, including the Kerala Land Reforms Act.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

MC/14.1

¶51

WP(C) NO. 491 OF 2022 7

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 491/2022

¶53

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶54

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 06.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 14.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO 2ND PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 06.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO 3RD PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 06.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO 4TH PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 07.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO 5TH PETITIONER.
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NUMBER TLB (SW) 607/73 DATED 12.03.1977 OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD, WAYAND.
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED PARTITION DEED NUMBER 4175/2011 OF THE SRO, KALPETTA DATED 29.10.2011.
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED PARTITION DEED NUMBER 2014/2011 OF THE SRO, KALPETTA DATED 13.05.2011.
Exhibit P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT NUMBER 1406/2014 OF THE SRO, KALPETTA DATED 28.03.2014.
Exhibit P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT NUMBER 811/2021 OF THE SRO, KALPETTA DATED 11.11.2020.
Exhibit P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE

¶55

WP(C) NO. 491 OF 2022 8

¶56

SECOND PETITIONER. Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE PROPERTY OF THE THIRD PETITIONER. Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.08.2018 IN WPC NO.2952/2017 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE BTR, DATED 25.10.2011.

Pushpalatha S Jain v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpalatha S Jain 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maheswari Vs Tahsildar

Jafar K. Vs the Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms)

Jafar K. Vs the Special Tahsildar ( Land Reforms)

P.K. Krishnakumar Vs the Chief Engineer

Abdul Basheer Vs Land Tribunal

Sumangali Vs the District Collector