Allowed

Tha-Aleemul Islam Trust v. the Village Officer

Kerala HC24 Jun 2022WP(C)/9805/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed the refusal by revenue authorities to accept basic tax from the petitioner. Directed authorities to receive tax, noting that basic tax payments do not prove title and fiscal proceedings cannot decide title disputes.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to receive basic tax from the petitioner with respect to the properties covered by Exhibits P1 and P2 within one month.

Tha-Aleemul Islam Trust Vs the Village Officer — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 9805 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THA-ALEEMUL ISLAM TRUST WADIHUDA, PAYANGADI, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY MR. MUHAMMED SAJID P.K, S/O ABDUL KHADER, DARUSSABAH, MATTOOL NORTH, KANNUR, PIN – 670 325

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) E.MOHAMMED SHAFI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MADAYI, KANNUR, PIN – 670 301

¶12

2 THE TAHSILDAR (LR) KANNUR TALUK, P.O. CVIL STATION, KANNUR, PIN – 670 001

¶13

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, P.O. CIVIL STATION, KANNUR, PIN – 670 001

¶14

4 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695 001

¶15

SMT. C. S SHEEJA, SR.GP.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶17

24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 9805 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

T.R.RAVI, J.

¶21

----------------------------------------
 WP(C) No.9805 OF 2022

¶22

 Dated this the 24thday of June, 2022

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Admit. Government Pleader takes notice for the

¶25

respondents.

¶26

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents
are not permitting them to pay basic tax for the properties owned
by them after 2017 for the reason that disputes are pending. On
the basis of the direction issued by this Court, the District
Collector who is the 3rd respondent herein had considered the
issue and passed Ext.P6 order on 21.06.2019 wherein it has been
clearly found that the petitioner cannot be treated as a
trespasser and provisions of the Land Conservancy Act cannot be
invoked to evict the petitioner from the property. It is further
held that the dispute is more in the nature of a title dispute which

¶27

has to be decided by a Civil Court. The grievance of the
petitioner is that despite the specific finding rendered by the
District Collector, the respondents 1 and 2 are not receiving the

¶28

¶29

WP(C) NO. 9805 OF 2022

¶30

basic tax from the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P2
application before respondents 1 and 2 in January 2022 but no
decision has so far been taken.

¶31

3. It is well settled that the payment of basic tax does not
indicate that the person who pays the tax has the title over the
property. The proceedings under the Land Tax Act are only fiscal
in nature and does not decide the title. The petitioner was paying
the basic tax for the property and it was only after 2017 that the
respondents had stopped receiving the tax. In view of the finding
in Ext.P6, the respondents 1 and 2 cannot refuse to accept tax for
the reason that there is a dispute. It is submitted that as a matter
of fact no person has initiated any civil suit or challenged the title
of the petitioner in any proceedings.

¶32

4. In such circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. There
will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to receive basic tax
from the petitioner with respect to the property covered by
Exts.P1 and P2. It is made clear that this Court is not expressing
any view regarding the title of the petitioner over the property.
The parties will be bound by any decision that may be rendered
in an appropriate civil proceeding where the title of the

¶33

WP(C) NO. 9805 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

petitioner is put in issue. Necessary orders shall be issued within
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

T.R.RAVI

¶38

JUDGE

¶39

sn

¶40

WP(C) NO. 9805 OF 2022

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9805/2022

¶43

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶44

EXHIBIT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNEMNT DEED NO. 3678/1995 DATED 28.11.1995 OF SRO, PAZHAYANGADI EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED JENMOM DEED NO. 568/1996 DATED 24.2.1996 OF SRO, PAZHAYANGADI EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE BEARING NO. 5837/1976 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND REVENUE PAYMENT RECEIPT DATED 19.5.2017 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 38100/2017 DATED 14.6.2018 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 21.6.2019 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.1.2022 MADE BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY REPORT TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE OF INDIA POST EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE DELIVERY REPORT TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE OF INDIA POST

¶45

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

¶46

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Tha-Aleemul Islam Trust v. the Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tha-Aleemul Islam Trust 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Varghese Lalu, Vs State of Kerala

Muhammad Faizal Vs District Collector

Muhammed Faizal Vs District Collector

Hameedkutty A.M Vs Sureshan E.P

M/S Confide Nt Projects India Pvt.Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

Muralichand Vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation