Quashed

Sahana Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Mar 2022WP(C)/6080/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order under Ext.P11 regarding land tax and possession, arguing it ignored prior tax receipts and the Thandaper Register showing existing account entry. The High Court of Kerala set aside Ext.P11, directing the Tahsildar to reconsider the matter within one month while adhering to due process.

What did the court decide?

Order Ext.P11 set aside; direction to Tahsildar to reconsider matter within one month of receipt of this judgment.

Sahana Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — 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 18^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 6080 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SAHANA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD 11 FLOOR, VALLAMATTOM ESTATE, MARADY, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-686 673, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.P SHIJU, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O PEETHAMBARAN, MUTHEMADATHIL HOUSE, OORAMANA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA PIN686 663

¶8

BY ADV SUNIL JACOB

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE DEPARTMENT), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶11

2 TAHASILDAR, LAND RECORDS, TALUK OFFICE, PALA, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 575.

¶12

3 VILLAGE OFFICER RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 576. BY ADVS. P.I.GEORGEKUTTY SHRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI. JAFAR KHAN,SR. G.P

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 6080 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner impugns Ext.P11 on various grounds, but primarily that it has been issued without adverting to Ext.P4 'Thandaper Register' as also Ext.P2 Tax Receipt, through which, the property in question has already been included in their account, they having been permitted to remit land tax thereon.

¶18

The learned Senior Government Pleader –

¶19

Sri.Jafar Khan, in reply to the afore allegations of the petitioner, as made by the learned counsel – Sri.Sunil Jacob, submitted that, as is evident from Ext.P11, the petitioner has not been able to produce any document to show that the extent of 184 Acres – classified in the Settlement Register as 'puramboke' – came into their possession and ownership. He added that, therefore, in the future of such documents having been produced,

¶20

WP(C) NO. 6080 OF 2022

¶21

¶22

the Tahsildar has acted without error in

¶23

issuing Ext.P11. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶24

petitioner had earlier approached this Court

¶25

and obtained Ext.P7 judgment. In the said

¶26

judgment, this Court had directed the Tahsildar to look into the rival aspects and issue a proper order.

¶27

clear that the Tahsildar has not even adverted

¶28

to Ext.P4 'Thandaper Register' or Ext.P3 Tax

¶29

Receipt. Of course, this is explained by

¶30

Sri.Jafar Khan saying that the entries in the 'Thandaper Register' may have been in error.

¶31

immediate favour with the afore submissions of Sri.Jafar Khan because if there are errors in

¶32

the 'Thandaper Register', then obviously, necessary steps to correct it ought to have

¶33

WP(C) NO. 6080 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

been taken and responsibility fixed on the

¶36

Authority concerned. In the admitted absence of any such action being taken, I cannot find Ext.P11 to deserve my favour. I, however, hasten to add that this does not mean that competent Authorities cannot take necessary action as regards the 'Thandaper Register', but that until it is so done, Ext.P11 cannot be granted imprimatur.

¶37

In the afore circumstances and solely for the reasons above, I set aside Ext.P11; with a consequential direction to the Tahsildar to reconsider the matter adverting to the directions in Ext.P7 judgment.

¶38

This shall be done as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

I make it reiteratingly clear that the observations in this judgment do not mean that necessary action against the entires in Ext.P4

¶40

WP(C) NO. 6080 OF 2022

¶41

¶42

cannot be taken, but that it shall be done only after following due procedure and after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

¶43

This writ petition is thus disposed of.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

SAS

¶48

WP(C) NO. 6080 OF 2022

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6080/2022

¶51

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶52

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPANY MASTER DATA. Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1732/2012 OF RAMAPURAM SRO. Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 28.6.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF BTR EXTRACT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO 190/2021DATED 15.9.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P6 THE TUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO D5 12242/2020 DATED 28.7.2021 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.10.2021 PASSED IN WPC NO 20520/2021 Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.10.2021 Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF PARTITION DEED NO 2912/1995 OF SRO RAMAPURAM Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO 292/1960 OF SRO DEVIKULAM Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.882/15 DATED 4/7/2015 (REPLY AFFIDAVIT) Exhibit p8 A TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER EXTRACT OF THANDAPER NO.3428 ISSUED BY THE 3RD

¶53

WP(C) NO. 6080 OF 2022

¶54

¶55

RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER DATED 4/7/2015 (REPLY AFFIDAVIT)

¶56

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶57

Exhibit R4A	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO- 185/2021 OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT, PALA
Exhibit R4B	THE TRUE COPY OF THE TECHNICAL REPORT OF DISASTER RISK DEDUCTION AND MANAGEMENT TOWARDS ROCK-FALL IN KURINJI AND KOTTAMALA, RAMAPURAM PANCHAYATH, JOINT FIELD INSPECTION, 18 APRIL 2016 , INSTITUTE OF 1ILDM. THIS STUDY WAS MADE ON THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. KOTTAMALA IS THE PROPERTIES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE.
Exhibit R4 C	THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE ON GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT OF ROCK FALL PRONE AREA AT KURUVANKUNNU- KOTTAMALA-KURINJI-KOOMPAN HILLS, RAMAPURAM PANCHAYATH, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KERALA, DR.PRAVEEN K.R., SR.GEOLOGIST AND THRUDEEPKUMAR N., SR.GEOLOGIST (UNDER THE AUSPICIOUS OF GOVT.OF INDIA, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, STATE UNIT, KERALA, MANIKANTESWARAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM) DATED 18.1.2019
Exhibit R4D	THE TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND REPORT OF 14TH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE (2016-19) WITH RESPECT TO KOTTAMALA- KURINJI -KOOMPAN HILLS IN KOTTAYAM DISTRICT (OLACED BEFORE THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ON 14.3.2017)
Exhibit R4E	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO- 202/2021 OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT PALA
Exhibit R4F	THE TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 10.9.2021

Sahana Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahana Industries Pvt. Ltd. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.B.Jayakrishnan Vs the Tahsildar

Kochurani, Vs State of Kerala

Alias K.T. Vs the Executive Engineer

Santhamma J. Vs Smt. Sari

Neethu Francis Vs State of Kerala

B Koyamma Vs Union of India