Allowed

K.Santhosh Kumar v. the Elanthoor Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC15 Sept 2023WP(C)/8810/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging property tax recovery notices was disposed of by directing the Grama Panchayath to decide the fresh name change application within one month and setting aside the notices upon the new owner's undertaking to pay dues.

What did the court decide?

The impugned demand notices are set aside; the 1st respondent is directed to decide the fresh application for name change in the assessment register within one month.

K.Santhosh Kumar Vs the Elanthoor Grama Panchayath — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 24TH BHADRA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 8810 OF 2018

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 K.SANTHOSH KUMAR

¶8

AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRASEKHARANNAIR, NOW RESIDING AT
SWSTHIKAM,ELANTHOOOR WEST MURI, ELANTHOOR

¶9

P.O.,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT FROMKAVUMGUMCHERIYATHU PRASANNA
VILASOM, ELANTHOORWEST MURI, ELANTHOOR P.O.,PATHANAMTHITTA-
689 643.

¶10

2 SINDHU SANTHOSH

¶11

AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.K. SANTHOSH KUMAR,NOW RESIDING AT SWSTHIKAM,ELANTHOOOR WEST MURI, ELANTHOOR

¶12

P.O.,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT FROMKAVUMGUMCHERIYATHU PRASANNA
VILASOM, ELANTHOORWEST MURI, ELANTHOOR P.O.,PATHANAMTHITTA-
689 643.

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
SRI.T.S.SARATH

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1THE ELANTHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
ELANTHOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 643,REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

2 SECRETARY THE ELANTHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,ELANTHOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 643.

¶18

3 SREEVIDYA SAJEEV

¶19

W/O. P.S. SAJEEV, AGED 43 YEARS,RESIDING AT PERUMTHODATHU
VEEDU,NEDUMPARYAR MURI,THOTTAPUZHASSERY VILLAGE, MARAMON
P.O.,KOZHENCHERY TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶20

BY ADVS.

¶21

SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE

¶22

SRI.M.JAYAKRISHNAN

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C) No.8810 of 2018

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Dated this the 15^th day of September, 2023

¶28

1 . The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Challenging Exts.P2 and P4 demand notices in respect of the property tax for the residential building No.11/298 situated at 1 st respondent Grama Panchayat. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said building was transferred through Ext.P1 sale deed in favour of the 3 rd respondent in the year 2011 itself. The 3 rd respondent had moved an application in the same year to change in the name of ownership for purposes of property tax. However, the Panchayath could not make necessary changes in the assessment register and the tax remained outstanding for which recovery notices have been issued against the petitioner.

¶29

2 . Learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent submits that a fresh application has been moved on 25.3.2023 with all relevant documents for effecting the change in the assessment register in respect of the said

¶30

WP(C) No.8810 of 2018

¶31

¶32

building. The 3 rd respondent undertakes to pay the due tax amount. Learned counsel for the Panchayath submits that the Panchayath will take a decision on the fresh application filed by the 3 rd respondent and this Court may dispose of this writ petition with appropriate direction.

¶33

3 . Considering the aforesaid submission and facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1 st respondent to take a decision on the fresh application of the 3 rd respondent for effecting the change in the assessment register within a period of one month. The 3 rd respondent undertakes to make payment of the due tax within the said period of one month. In view thereof, impugned notices Exts.P2 and Ext.P4 are hereby set aside.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

¶38

WP(C) No.8810 of 2018

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8810/2018

¶41

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBIT-P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2576/2011 OF` `PATHANAMTHITTA SRO`
`EXHIBIT-P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. A3-1011/18` `DATED 09/03/2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS`
`EXHIBTI-P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION CUM` `APPLICATION SEEKING TO EFFECT NAME CHANGE` `OF OWNERSHIP IN THE PROPERTY TAX DEMAND` `REGISTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE` `2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12/03/2018 PURSUANT TO` `EXHIBIT-P2`
`EXHIBIT-P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY DEMAND` `NOTICE NO. E3-3391/2017 DATED 12/02/2018` `ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT-P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION CUM` `APPLICATION SEEKING TO EFFECT NAME CHANGE` `OF OWNERSHIP9 IN THE PROPERTY TAX DEMAND` `REGISTER FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE` `2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21/02/2018 PURSUANT TO` `EXHIBIT-P4`

K.Santhosh Kumar v. the Elanthoor Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Santhosh Kumar v. the Elanthoor Grama Panchayath

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

B. Radhakrishnan, Vs Kozhikode Municipal Corporation

Binshad P.M., Vs State of Kerala

Cherian Kariyakulath Varghese, Vs State of Kerala

Ahamed Thazhe Chalikal, Vs the Tahsildar

Krishna Steel Rolling Mills, Represented by Its Managing Partner, R. Elangovan, Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Arrears Recovery)

George Koshy Vs the State of Kerala