Disposed

T. Lathika v. the District Collector

Kerala HC24 Jul 2024WP(C)/26532/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Title holders sought a direction to the Village Officer to accept basic tax for their land, which was refused due to a pending C.R.P. against a Taluk Land Board order. The court held that mere pendency of the revision is no bar and directed acceptance of basic tax, subject to final outcome.

What did the court decide?

Village Officer directed to accept basic tax from petitioners, subject to outcome of pending C.R.P.(LR) No.126/2015.

T. Lathika Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 2ND SRAVANA, 1946

¶4

WP(C) NO. 26532 OF 2023

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 T. LATHIKA AGED 54 YEARS

¶7

D/O. P.V. NARAYANAN NAMBIAR, THEEYANCHERI, KEEZHARA, P.O. CHERUKUNNU, KANNUR, PIN - 670301

¶8

2 PARVATHI AMMA P.T. AGED 87 YEARS W/O. KRISHNAN, PALANGADAN THUMBIYODAN HOUSE, KUNNARU, PATTUVAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670143

¶9

3 P.T. PURUSHOTTAMAN AGED 62 YEARS

¶10

S/O. APPAKUTTY NAMBIAR, PALANGADAN THUMBIYODAN HOUSE, KUNNARU, PATTUVAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670143

¶11

4 SHOBHANA P.T. AGED 58 YEARS

¶12

W/O. P.V. NARAYANAN & D/O. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, PALANGADAN THUMBIYODAN HOUSE, KUNNARU, PATTUVAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670143

¶13

5 PRAMOD NAMBIAR P.T. AGED 51 YEARS

¶14

S/O. KUNHKRISHNAN, 401A WING, ATHARVA PARK, CHS, SHIVAI NAGAR, JEKEGRAM, THANE, MAHARASHTRA - 400 606.

¶15

6 VINODKUMAR P.T. AGED 47 YEARS

¶16

S/O. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, PALANGADAN THUMBIYODAN HOUSE, KUNNARU, PATTUVAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670143

¶17

7 JAYARAJAN I.V. AGED 68 YEARS

¶18

S/O. P.V. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, ILLATHE VEETTIL, REVATHI HOUSE, PATTUVAM, KANNUR, PIN - 670143

¶19

8 NIRMALA C NAMBIAR AGED 63 YEARS D/O. PVK NAMBIAR, 364/1. C16 SAHITHYAM APARTMENT, CHURCH ROAD, MUGAPPAIR EAST, P.O. MOGAPPAIR, AMBATTUR, TIRUVALLUR, CHENNAI,TAMIL NADU – 600307

¶20

¶21

W.P.(C) NO.26532 OF 2023

¶22

9USHA NAMBIAR
AGED 67 YEARS
D/O. PVK NAMBIAR, 364/1. C16 SAHITHYAM APARTMENT,
CHURCH ROAD, MUGAPPAIR EAST, P.O. MOGAPPAIR,
AMBATTUR, TIRUVALLUR, CHENNAI,
TAMIL NADU - 600307

¶23

10R.S.K. NAMBIAR.
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O. PVK NAMBIAR, A1-91, 3A, 9TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA
NAGAR, VTC AMMA NAGAR, P.O. AMMA NAGAR, CHENNAI,
TAMIL NADU - 600040

¶24

BY ADVS.
MATHEW KURIAKOSE
G.GIREESH
T.G.SUNIL (PERUMBAVOOR)
J.KRISHNAKUMAR (ADOOR)
C.N.PRAKASH
MONI GEORGE
SHAJI P.K.

¶25

RESPONDENTS:

¶26

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶27

KANNUR, CIVIL STATION, KANNUR, PIN - 670002

¶28

2 THE SUB COLLECTOR (RDO) TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN - 670141

¶29

3 THE TAHSILDAR TALIPARAMBA, TALUK OFFICE TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR - 670141

¶30

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PATTUVAM, VILLAGE OFFICE PATTUVAM,KANNUR - 670143

¶31

5 THE CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR - 670002

¶32

BY ADV.

¶33

SRI. ASWIN SETHUMADHAVAN - SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEDER

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 24.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C) NO.26532 OF 2023

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The petitioners are aggrieved by the non acceptance of basic tax in respect of their property by the 4^th respondent.

¶39

The petitioners are the title holders in possession of 88.75 cents of land situated in R. S. No. 81/2 of Pattuvam Amsom, Ariyil Desom. They had been remitting basic tax in respect of the said property, as revealed from Exts.P6 and P7. Now, the 4^th respondent is not accepting the tax from the petitioners on the ground that C. R. P. (LR) No.126/2015 preferred by the State against Ext.P4 order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba is pending before this Court. In Ext. P4, the Taluk Land Board upheld the claim of the petitioners that their property will not fall within the surplus land involved in the proceedings in TLB No. 1636/1973.

¶40

I have heard Sri. Mathew Kuriakose, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Aswin Sethumadhavan, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶41

¶42

W.P.(C) NO.26532 OF 2023

¶43

The mere pendency of C.R.P. before this Court challenging Ext.P4 cannot be a bar for not accepting tax from the petitioners. Hence, the 4^th respondent is directed to accept the basic tax from the petitioners. However, it will be subject to the final outcome of the C.R.P. pending before this Court.

¶44

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶47

¶48

¶49

W.P.(C) NO.26532 OF 2023

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26532/2023

¶51

PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS

¶52

Exhibit P 1TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
PARTITION DEED NO. 3341/ 1974 OF S.R.O.
TALIPARAMBA
Exhibit P 2TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PURCHASE
NO. 714/1977 DATED 21.01.1977 ISSUED BY
THE LAND TRIBUNAL NO. 1, TALIPARAMBA
Exhibit P 3TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
PARTITION DEED NO. 1583/1993 DATED
07.06.1993 OF THE S.R.O. TALIPARAMBA
Exhibit P 4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2011
OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD TALIPARAMBA
Exhibit P 5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.01.2012
ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA
Exhibit P 6TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPTS
DATED 08.03.2012
Exhibit P 7TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPTS
DATED 06.03.2014
Exhibit P 8A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER CUM REPLY DATED
23.01.2023
Exhibit P 9A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER CUM REPLY DATED
15.02.2023

¶53

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL

T. Lathika v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Lathika 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Radhakrishnan Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner

Pradeep Kumar E.N. Vs the District Collector

Balan Vs State of Kerala Represented by Secretary

K.a.Ratheesh, Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

R. Chandrasekharan, Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Lillikutty, Vs State of Kerala