Disposed

Janaki v. Village Officer

Kerala HC11 Jun 2024WP(C)/3441/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Village Officer refused basic tax payment and possession certificates due to pending civil disputes. Court held tax payment is for fiscal purposes only per Rule 16 of Transfer of Registry Rules 1966, quashed refusal letter, directed provisional acceptance of tax and issue of possession certificates subject to pending execution proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P12 quashed; respondents directed to accept basic tax provisionally and issue possession certificates, subject to pending execution proceedings.

Janaki Vs Village Officer — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 3441 OF 2013

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

1 [JANAKI WIFE OF LATE CHAMUNNY, PUTHANKALAM, CHITHALI, KUZHALMANNAM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT].

¶7

DECEASED, LEGAL HEIR IMPLEADED

¶8

2 [RUGMANY W/O. LATE GOPALAN, PUTHANKULAM, DO. DO. DO.]

¶9

DECEASED

¶10

3 JAGANNIVASAN

¶11

S/O. LATE GOPALAN, DO. DO. DO.

¶12

4 SREENIVASAN

¶13

DO. DO. DO.

¶14

5 BHAVADASAN DO. DO. DO.

¶15

6 ADDL.P6.HARIDASAN , AGED 68 YEARS S/O LATE CHAMMUNY, PUTHANKALAM, CHITHALI, KUZHALMANNAM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678702

¶16

7 ADDL.P7.INDIRA,AGED 65 YEARS, D/O LATE CHAMMUNY, PUTHANKALAM, CHITHALI, KUZHALMANNAM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678702.

¶17

8 ADDL.P8:C.PARTHAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/0.LATE.CHAMMUNY, PUTHANKALAM, CHITHALI, KUZHALMANNAM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678702.

¶18

9 ADDL.P9.C.MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.LATE CHAMMUNY, PUTHANKALAM, CHITHALI, KUZHALMANNAM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678702.

¶19

10 ADDL.P10:SATHEESH K.P., AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.LATE.CHAMMUNY, PUTHANKALAM, CHITHALI, KUZHALMANNAM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678702.

¶20

11 ADDL.P11. SANTHOSH K.P., AGED 49 YEARS, S/O LATE CHAMMUNY, PUTHANKALAM, CHITHALI, KUZHALMANNAM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678702.

¶21

WP(C) NO. 3441 OF 2013 2

¶22

12 ADDL.P12: SANAL KUMARI, AGED 47 YEARS, WIFE OF KANNANKUTTY, PUTHANKALAM, CHITHALI, KUZHALMANNAM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN-678702

¶23

 * ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL.P6 TO ADDL.P12 AS THE LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED 1ST PETITIONER AS PER
ORDER DATED 31.05.2024 IN IA-2/2024 IN
WP(C)NO.3441/2013
BY ADVS.
N.SUKUMARAN (SR.)
S.SHYAM
BOBBY MATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM
N.K.KARNIS
V.K.BALACHANDRAN
VINAY KUMAR VARMA

¶24

RESPONDENT/S:

¶25

1 VILLAGE OFFICER KUZHALMANNAM NO. 1 VILLAGE, KUZHALMANNAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 678702.

¶26

2 THE TAHSILDAR ALATHOOR TALUK, ALATHUR P.O., PIN 678702.

¶27

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶28

4 SUDEVAN S/O. ARUMUGHAN, PUTHANKALAM, CHITHALI, KUZHALMANNAM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD-678702. BY ADVS. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SRI.R.MANIKANTAN

¶29

SMT. THUSHARA JAMES (SR GP)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

WP(C) NO. 3441 OF 2013 3

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioners have approached this Court, challenging Ext.P12 letter of the Village Officer, Kuzhalmandam 1 Village, refusing to accept basic tax in the name of the petitioners in respect of certain properties mentioned in Ext.P12.

¶34

It is the case of the petitioners that they have been in possession of the properties in question and have been paying basic tax in their names and it was not legally proper to deny to the petitioners’ the right to remit basic tax in their names and to obtain possession certificate only on account of the fact that civil disputes are pending.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that a suit for partition as O.S. No.518 of 1981 on the files of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Palakkad culminated in a final decree. It is submitted that the final decree in that suit for partition was confirmed by this Court by judgment dated 21.10.2011 in R.F.A. No.581/2004 and connected cases. It is submitted that, even though execution proceedings are pending, the petitioners continue to be in possession of the properties in question and basic tax was being collected from

¶36

WP(C) NO. 3441 OF 2013 4

¶37

the parties to the execution proceedings in accordance with their possession till the year 2019. It is submitted that the 4^th respondent unnecessarily filed a complaint before the 1^st respondent, leading to the issuance of Ext.P12 proceedings. It is submitted that the payment of tax is for fiscal purposes and it is not evidence of title and no prejudice, whatsoever, will be caused, if the petitioners are permitted to remit the land tax as before and obtain possession certificate in respect of their properties in their possession, making it clear that the same will be provisional and subject to the result of the proceedings for execution of the final decree in O.S. No.518/1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Palakkad, as affirmed by this Court in R.F.A. No.581/2004 and Connected cases.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent would submit that the disputes between the parties have been pending for more than three decades and unless those proceedings attain finality, the petitioners will not be entitled to remit tax in their names and they have no right to obtain the possession certificates issued in their names.

¶39

WP(C) NO. 3441 OF 2013 5

¶40

Having heard Sri. N Sukumaran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, on the instructions of Adv. S Shyam, Sri. Binoy Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents , I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of, permitting the petitioners to remit tax in respect of the properties (which are subject matter of Ext.P12 in their names) and also to obtain possession certificates in respect of those properties, subject to the condition that the same will be provisional and subject to the execution proceedings now pending before the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Palakkad. I am inclined to take this view on account of the fact that the payment of property tax is only for fiscal purposes. This is clear from the provisions of Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966.

¶41

In the light of the above findings, Ext.P12 is quashed. The 1^st respondent is directed to accept tax from the petitioners as was being accepted earlier, provisionally and also to issue possession certificate. It is made clear that this shall always be subject to any decision in the execution

¶42

WP(C) NO. 3441 OF 2013 6

¶43

proceedings pending before the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Palakkad.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

GOPINATH P.

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

ajt

¶48

WP(C) NO. 3441 OF 2013 7

¶49

APPENDIX

¶50

EXHIBIT P1 – TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.10.2011 IN RFA
NO.581/2004 OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶51

EXHIBIT P2 – TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 20.2.2007

¶52

EXHIBIT P3 – TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 17.3.2009

¶53

EXHIBIT P4 – TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO 3RD PETITIONER DATED 18.4.2044

¶54

EXHIBIT P5 – TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 10.05.2010

¶55

EXHIBIT P6 – TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 28.10.2006

¶56

EXHIBIT P7 – TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 20.2.2007.

¶57

EXHIBIT P8 – TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 30.06.2009

¶58

EXHIBIT P9 – TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 12.06.2009.

¶59

EXHIBIT P10 – TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 07.10.2009.
EXHIBIT P11 – TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY

¶60

WP(C) NO. 3441 OF 2013 8

¶61

THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 14.1.2009.

¶62

EXHIBIT P12 – TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 24.9.2012

¶63

EXHIBIT P13 – TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER’S SON KANNANKUTTY BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
28.9.2012

¶64

EXHIBIT P14 – TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 11.10.2012.

Janaki v. Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janaki v. 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

Saiju a.v, Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep Kumar.P., Vs State of Kerala

Satheesh.S Vs Ministry of Finance

S.Sangeetha Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by Govt. of Kerala

S.Mohanan Vs the District Collector

Miss.Ankitha K and Another Represented by Their Guardian Mr.Anilkumar K. Vs Kerala Table Tennis Association, Kozhikode District