Dismissed

Beena Kannath Raphy v. Tahsildar

Kerala HC3 Mar 2022WP(C)/663/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP(C) No. 663 of 2022, the Kerala High Court directed the Village Officer to remove an endorsement on a tax receipt stating the property registry transfer was 'temporary' and subject to appeal, ordering a fresh receipt without the endorsement while reserving the matter for future court orders.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Village Officer to remove the endorsement on Ext.P4 and reissue or issue a fresh tax receipt without the temporary endorsement.

Beena Kannath Raphy Vs Tahsildar — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | 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. 663 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BEENA KANNATH RAPHY AGED 53 YEARS W/O. RAPHY KURIAN KANNATH, KANNATH HOUSE, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PARAPPUKKARA DHESHAM, PUTHUKKAD P. O., THRISSUR DIST., PIN - 680 301.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.V.B.HARINARAYAN RUBY P.PAULOSE SALIHA BEEVI P.A SWATHI JAYARAJ

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 TAHSILDAR MUKUNTHAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680121.

¶11

2 VILLAGE OFFICER MUKUNTHAPURAM VILLAGE OFFICE, THRISSUR, PIN - 680121.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.MUHAMMED RAFIQUE SPL. G.P.

¶14

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

¶15

WP(C) NO. 663 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶19

impugning Ext.P4 tax receipt to the limited extent

¶20

that the 2^nd respondent - Village Officer has made an endorsement therein that the transfer of Registry of the property involved in this case is 'temporary' and subject to an appeal to be filed against certain earlier judgments.

¶21

When this matter was called on 25.02.2022, noticing the submissions of Sri.Muhammed Rafique, learned Special Government Pleader, I passed the following order:

¶22

“In Ext.P3 judgment, this Court had directed respondents 1 and 2 to efface the attachments and to allow the petitioner to pay tax on the property covered by the Sale Certificate.

¶23

However, in Ext.P4, the 2nd respondent – Village Officer, has made an endorsement that the transfer of Registry is only temporary and subject to appeal against Ext.P3. Ex facie, the action of the Village Officer in having made such an endorsement on Ext.P4 is contrary to the specific directions of this Court in Ext.P3.

¶24

Unfortunately, the learned Special Government Pleader supports this on various other grounds, which had obviously not been impelled when Ext.P3 judgment was delivered and this is evident from the Statement filed on

¶25

WP(C) NO. 663 OF 2022

¶26

¶27

record.

¶28

It is thus indubitable that the 2nd respondent must file an affidavit before this Court explaining why he made the impugned endorsement on Ext.P4, in spite of the specific directions in Ext.P3.

¶29

This affidavit shall be placed on record by the next posting date.”

¶30

The learned Special Government Pleader today submitted that his client is willing to file an affidavit, but conceded that the endorsement on Ext.P4 can be removed; however, with liberty being reserved to the competent Authority to file Appeals against the earlier judgments, including Ext.P3.

¶31

Taking note of the fairness shown by

¶32

Sri.Muhammed Rafique at the Bar today, I am of the

¶33

view that no further precipitation is necessary with respect to the contentions between the parties.

¶34

In fact, Sri.V.B.Harinarayanan, learned

¶35

counsel for the petitioner, submitted that since his

¶36

client is confining her plea to the removal of the

¶37

endorsement on Ext.P4 and for a direction to the

¶38

Village Officer to have the transfer of Registry

¶39

¶40

WP(C) NO. 663 OF 2022

¶41

treated as being 'permanent', he would not stand in the way of this Court passing appropriate orders.

¶42

Resultantly, I order this writ petition, recording the afore submissions of Sri.Muhammed Rafique, that the endorsement on Ext.P4 will be removed and that it will either be reissued or a fresh tax receipt issued without it; however, leaving full liberty to the competent respondents to initiate any appropriate action with respect to the earlier judgments of this Court, including Ext.P3, in terms of law.

¶43

It is also made clear that all rival contentions

¶44

of the parties, particularly those which have been impelled by the respondents in their statement dated 03.02.2022, are left open.

¶45

To clarify reiteratingly, the effect of the afore directions will be that the transfer of Registry of

¶46

the property effected in favour of the petitioner

¶47

will not be construed as being 'temporary'; however, subject to any further orders that may be issued by a

¶48

WP(C) NO. 663 OF 2022

¶49

¶50

competent Court in future.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶53

MC/3.3

¶54

WP(C) NO. 663 OF 2022

¶55

¶56

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 663/2022

¶57

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶58

Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE NO.12/2020 DATED 03.01.2020. Exhibit P2 A COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 30.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.09.2020 IN WP NO.18941/2020. Exhibit P4 A COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 19.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 A COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.1.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Beena Kannath Raphy v. Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beena Kannath Raphy v. Tahsildar

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

P.R.Danavan Vs Aniyamma Varghese.K.

T.C. Thomas, Vs the Secretary

C. Niranjanam Vs the District Collector