Allowed

Smt. Bhagyalakshmi, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Mar 2024WP(C)/32349/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court examined if a tax receipt endorsement pending a vigilance case involving a third party legally blocks a petitioner's property. Declared the case does not involve the petitioner's land.

What did the court decide?

Ext P5 set aside; direction to 3rd respondent to consider removal of petitioner's property from notified land entry and remove pending vigilance case notation within 3 weeks.

Smt. Bhagyalakshmi, Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 32349 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI,AGED 51 YEARS W/O K V GOPINATH RESIDING AT GOPIKA (H), PANIKERS COLONY STREET ALUKKAL, MANJERI, NARUKARA, MALAPURAM DISTRICT -676122., PIN - 676122

¶8

BY ADVS. PARVATHY VIJAYAN S.SIBHA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM -, PIN - 676505

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER NARUKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, PATTARKULAM, MANJERI, MALAPURAM DISTRICT -, PIN - 676517

¶13

4 ADDL. R4. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, MALAPURAM UNIT, MALAPURAM H.O. MUNDUPARAMBU - CHENNATHU - MELMURI - MARIYAD ROAD, MUNDUPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM, KERALA-676509 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R4 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2023 IN I.A.NO.1/2023 IN WP(C) 32349/2023.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

GP - DEEPA V.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C).No.32349 of 2024 2

¶18

VIJU ABRAHAM,J

¶19

W.P.(C).No.32349 of 2024

¶20

Dated this the 22^nd day of March, 2024

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner has approached this court

¶23

seeking a direction to the 3^rd respondent to remove the petitioner’s property from the head “notified

¶24

land” and for other consequential relief.

¶25

It is averred that the petitioner purchased a certain extent of property by Ext.P1 and tax was paid as evident from Exts.P2 to P3(a). When the tax was paid for the year 2022-23 as per Ext.P4, there is an endorsement in the receipt that there

¶26

is a pending Vigilance case bearing No. VC 04/2015. Petitioner requested for correcting the wrongful entry in Ext.P4 to which Ext.P5 reply was given stating that a crime is pending as VC No. 4/2015 and the property has been included as a notified land and only on disposal of the said case, that further proceedings could be initiated in the matter. Additional 4^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein paragraphs 3 and 6

¶27

W.P.(C).No.32349 of 2024 3

¶28

read as follows:

¶29

“3. It is submitted that based on the findings in Vigilance Enquiry (VE 8/2013/MPM) regarding allegation of abuse of officers by Shri.P.K.Jayasankar, former Village Officer, Narukara and Shri.P.Muraleesharan, former Special Tahsildar, Land Tribunal, Manjeri in granting pattayam illegally for undue pecuniary advantage, a case was registered as VC 04/2015/MPM under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act 1988 and Section 465, 467, 468, 471, 120 B r/w 34 IPC against Shri.P.K.Jayasankar, former Village Officer, Narukara (A1), Shri.P.Muraleedharan, former Special Tahsildar, Land Tribunal, Manjeri (A2) and Shri.P.Venugopalan, age 36/2014, S/o Gopalakrishnan Nair, Konoth (H) Ponmala now residing at Kamalayam (H), Karad, Wandoor, Private individual (A3).

¶30

It is humbly submitted that as per records, the lands to the extend of 1.20 Acres and another 30 cents in Survey No.63 in Narukara Village are involved in this case. Eventhough the involvement and possession of land by the husband of petitioner is mentioned in the final report, the involvement of petitioner is not mentioned any where. The sale deeds involved in the case is also stated in the preceding paragraph. The case records mention the old survey No.63 of the lands involved. It is learnt that resurvey was conducted in Narukara village later. Therefore, a verification of the land involved in the case based on re-survey needs to be done by revenue authorities and appropriate decision may be taken in this regard.”

¶31

(underline supplied)

¶32

In the counter affidavit it is admitted that even though the involvement and possession of land by the husband of the petitioner is mentioned in the final report, the involvement of the petitioner is

¶33

W.P.(C).No.32349 of 2024 4

¶34

not mentioned anywhere. Further instructions were

¶35

sought for regarding the involvement of the

¶36

subject property in the Vigilance case numbered as VC No. 04/2015.

¶37

The learned Government Pleader upont

¶38

instructions from the 3rd respondent Village

¶39

Officer submitted as follows:

¶40

“ The property that is the base of the vigilance case having No.VC 4/2015 is comprised in old survey No.63 of Narukara Village. The corresponding resurvey numbers of the above survey number as per revenue records are 20/1,20/2,20/3,20/4,20/5,20/6,20/8,20/9,20/10,20/ 11,20/12,20/13,20/14,20/15,20/16,20/17,20/20,20/3 5,20/36,20/7,20/18,20/26. It is also stated that the property of the petitioner in WP(C) No.32349/2023 is in Re-Sy No.20/19 of Narukara Village and it's old survey number is 62/2pt.”

¶41

The instructions from the Village Officer also

¶42

reveal that the subject property is not involved

¶43

in the Vigilance case numbered as VC No. 04/2015. If in fact the petitioner or the subject property is not involved in VC No. 04/2015, there cannot be

¶44

any endorsement in the records pertaining to the

¶45

property that the Vigilance case is pending. In view of the above, the stand taken in Ext P5 that further steps for removing the endorsement that

¶46

W.P.(C).No.32349 of 2024 5

¶47

the Vigilance case is pending could be taken only

¶48

after disposal of VC No. 04/2015, cannot be accepted.

¶49

Accordingly, Ext P5 is set aside, with a consequential direction to the 3^rd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for removal of the property under the head notified land and to remove the entry of the pending vigilance case in the records pertaining to the petitioner’s property in the light of the stand taken in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit and the instructions of the 3^rd respondent noted in the judgment and the observation made by this Court

¶50

and pass orders with an outer limit of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶51

sd/-

¶52

VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE

¶53

¶54

W.P.(C).No.32349 of 2024 6

¶55

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32349/2023

¶56

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶57

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY O DATED 28.10	F THE SAL .2008 OF	E DEED NO 83 MANJERI SRO	92/2008
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY O 10.11.2016	F THE LAN	D TAX RECEIP	T DATED
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY 04.01.2019	OF THE	TAX RECEIPT	DATED
Exhibit P3(a)	TRUE COPY 30.05.2020	OF THE	TAX RECEIPT	DATED
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY 14.02.2023	OF THE	TAX RECEIPT	DATED
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY 3RD RESPOND	OF THE C ENT DATED	OMMUNICATION 17.05.2023	OF THE
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY 04/2015 NOW THE VIGILAN	OF THE PENDING CE COURT	PROCEEDINGS AS CC 8/2018 KOZHIKODE EX	OF VC BEFORE TRACTED
	FROM THE DATED NIL	KOZHIKODE	E-COURTS	WEBSITE
Exhibit P7	TRUE COP CERTIFICATE	Y OF DATED 20	THE ENCU .02.2023	MBRANCE

Smt. Bhagyalakshmi, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bhagyalakshmi, 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

Pramod Vs State of Kerala

Kunhi Thampatty P.K ( Ambadi Kovilagam Valiya Thamburatty ) Vs the District Collector

O.J. Kuruvilla Vs State of Kerala

Lalitha Vs State of Kerala

Syed Muhammed M.K. Vs the State of Kerala

K.Jayachandran, Vs the District Collector, Kollam