Allowed

M. Radhakrishnan v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

Kerala HC23 Jul 2024WP(C)/3742/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the District Collector lacked jurisdiction to entertain a revision against an order of the Tahsildar under Rule 18(i) of the Transfer of Registry Rules. The remedy lay with the Revenue Division Officer. Consequently, the Collector's order was set aside.

What did the court decide?

The order passed by the respondent No.2 directing non-acceptance of tax was set aside. Liberty granted to respondent No.4 to challenge the Ext.P1 order before the jurisdictional RDO within fifteen day

M. Radhakrishnan Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF JULY 2024 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 3742 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M. RADHAKRISHNAN AGED 73 YEARS, S/O. SAMI @ BHANU, RESIDING AT MADHURAKANDI HOUSE, PO. VENGERI, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673010

¶8

BY ADVS. V.V.SURENDRAN P.A.HARISH ASWATHI C.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, REVENUE COMPLEX, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE BUILDING CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE- 673020, PIN - 673020

¶12

3 THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020

¶13

4 GIRISH KIZHAKKEKATTU AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. SUDHAKARAN VAIDYAR, NIRMALA AYURVEDA PHARMACY, PO. KOOTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN - 670640

¶14

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KACHERI VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020

¶15

BY ADVS. T.MADHU C.R.SARADAMANI(S-891) SHAHID AZEEZ(K/000630/2015) RESHMA SANTHOSH(K/001808/2019) RENJISH S. MENON(K/001486/2021) RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE, GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C) No. 3742/2023

¶18

..2..

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The petitioner filed an application before the respondent No.3 to receive tax in respect of the property belongs to him and others. The respondent No.4 objected the application filed by the petitioner. The respondent No.3 after hearing the petitioner as well as the respondent No.4 passed Ext.P1 order whereby the application filed by the petitioner was allowed and ordered to accept tax from the petitioner. In compliance of the order, the petitioner paid tax also. Ext.P3 would prove the same. Against Ext.P1 order, the respondent No.4 preferred appeal before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.4 approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20792/2021 challenging Ext.P1 order. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent No.2 to dispose of the appeal preferred by the respondent No.4. The respondent No.2 thereafter passed Ext.P4 order, after hearing both sides. As per Ext.P4 order, the respondent No.2 ordered not to accept tax either from the petitioner or from the respondent No.4. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred revision before the respondent No.1 with an application to condone the delay. The respondent No.1 dismissed the application to condone the delay by Ext.P7 communication. Consequently, the revision also was dismissed. It is challenging Ext.P7 communication, this writ petition has been preferred.

¶21

W.P.(C) No. 3742/2023

¶22

..3..

¶23

I have heard Sri.P.A.Harish, the learned counsel appearing for

¶24

the petitioner, Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George, the learned Government Pleader and Smt.C.R.Saradamani, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.

¶25

Ext.P1 order passed by the respondent No.3 in fact was appealable before the RDO under Rule 18(i) of the Transfer of Registry Rules. However, instead of filing appeal before the RDO, the respondent No.4 chose to file appeal before the respondent No.2. This Court in W.P.(C) No.20792/2021 gave a direction to the respondent No.2 to dispose of the appeal and accordingly, the respondent No.2 happened to pass Ext.P4 order. No contention was raised before the respondent No.2 either by the petitioner or the respondent No.4 that the respondent No.2 was not the appellate authority. This Court while passing the judgment in W.P.(C) No.20792/2021 also did not consider the question whether the respondent No.2 had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeal. Against an order passed by RDO under Rule 18(i) of the Transfer of Registry Rules, the revision will lie before the District Collector under Rule 18(iv). Since the respondent No.4 filed appeal before the District Collector, the petitioner has lost his right to challenge the order before the revisional authority. In fact, as against the order passed under the Transfer of Registry Rules, the revision will not lie before

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 3742/2023

¶27

..4..

¶28

the respondent No.1. Since, the respondent No.2 did not have jurisdiction to entertain appeal against the order passed by the respondent No.3 under the Transfer of Registry Rules, Ext.P4 order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it is set aside. However, the respondent No.4 is granted liberty to challenge Ext.P1 order before the jurisdictional RDO, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If an appeal is filed by the respondent No.4 before the RDO as aforementioned, the RDO shall dispose of the same, after hearing the petitioner as well as the respondent No.4, in accordance with law, within a period of three months thereafter.

¶29

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE

¶32

APA

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 3742/2023

¶34

..5..

¶35

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3742/2023

¶36

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶37

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE PASSED	COPY BY THE	OF 3RD	THE RES	ORDER DATED 03.11.2018 PONDENT
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE	COPY	O	F T	HE COMMUNICATION DATED
	21.01.2 VILLAGE	019 BY OFFICE	T R, K	HE ACH	3RD RESPONDENT TO THE ERI
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE 27.11.2	COPY OF 018 ISS	TH UED	E BA BY	SIC TAX CERTIFICATE DATED THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE DATED 1	COPY OF 0.10.20	TH 22	E OR	DER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE DATED BEFORE	COPY 12.12.2 THE 1ST	OF 022 RES	THE FI PON	MEMORANDUM OF REVISION LED BY THE PETITIONER DENT
EXHIBITP6	A TRUE	COPY	OF	THE	AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION
	DATED 1ST RES	12.12.2 PONDENT	022	IN	THE REVISION BEFORE THE
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE 30.12.2 PETITIO	COPY 022 ISS NER	O UED	F T BY	HE COMMUNICATION DATED THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE

¶38

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶39

EXHIBIT R4(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 12/5/2015 OF THE TOWN SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, KOZHIKODE EXHIBIT R4(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.927/1987 DATED 9/9/1987 OF KOZHIKODE SRO EXHIBIT R4(c) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.316/1982 OF KOZHIKODE SRO EXHIBIT R4(d) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 26/10/2021 ISSUED BY THE SRO KOZHIKODE EXHIBIT R4(e) THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 23/12/2021 OF THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT EXHIBIT R4(f) THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1313/1973 DATED 24/8/1973 OF WEST HILL SRO

M. Radhakrishnan v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Radhakrishnan v. the Land Revenue Commissioner

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

Rajasree Rajeev Vs Village Officer

Sweety Ramdas Vs 1. Special Tahsildar, (La)

Esakki Durai Vs District Collector

Pradeep Kumar E.N. Vs the District Collector

Balan Vs State of Kerala Represented by Secretary

Dr.Swapna Gopinath, Vs the Principal, Sree Narayana College