Bhavani Amma vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 15463 Ker

WP(C) NO. 23814 OF 2019     1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
     FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2021 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1943
                    WP(C) NO. 23814 OF 2019


PETITIONER/S:



    1     BHAVANI AMMA,
          AGED 75 YEARS,
          D/O.KARTHIYANI AMMA, THEKKE KUNMBALATH HOUSE, KALLUR
          POST, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT.

    2     JAYALAKSHMI,
          AGED 38 YEARS,
          D/O.BHAVANI AMMA, THEKKE KUNMBALATH HOUSE, KALLUR
          POST, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT.

    3     UNNIKRISHNAN,
          AGED 33 YEARS,
          S/O.BHAVANI AMMA, THEKKE KUNMBALATH HOUSE, KALLUR
          POST, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT.

          BY ADVS.
          JACOB SEBASTIAN
          SRI.K.V.WINSTON
          SMT.ANU JACOB



RESPONDENT/S:



    1     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          PALAKKAD, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678001.

    2     THE THAHSILDAR,
          PALAKKAD, TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKAD-678001.

    3     THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
          MANKARA VILLAGE, MANKARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
          PIN-678613.
 WP(C) NO. 23814 OF 2019   2



    4     DHAKSHAYANI AMMA,
          AGED 80 YEARS,
          D/O.KARTHIYANI AMMA, THEKKE KUNMBALATH HOUSE, KALLUR
          POST, PALAKKAD TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN-678613.

          BY ADV SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN




          SMT A C VIDHYA, GP




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 23814 OF 2019           3




                                  JUDGMENT

The 1st petitioner is the mother of petitioners 2 and 3. Being aggrieved

by the acts of the revenue in collecting basic tax in respect of an item of

immovable property, of which they have been remitting basic tax, the

petitioners are before this Court. They also challenge the issuance of

possession certificates in favour of the party respondent in respect of the very

same property.

2. The petitioners contend that the 1st petitioner herein was the

absolute owner of an item of property having an extent of about 8 Ares and

falling in Sy.No. 389/11 of Mangara village. In the year 1998, the property

was assigned by her to her husband Sri. Ramakrishna Mannadiar. In the year

2004, Sri.Ramakrishna Mannadiar executed a gift deed and transferred his

rights to his children, the petitioners 2 and 3. They effected the transfer of

registry in their favour and they were permitted to remit basic tax as is evident

from Exts.P3 and P4. According to the petitioners, they are the defendants 6

to 8 in O.S.No.532 of 2014 on the file of the Munsiff (Additional) Palakkad.

The suit was one for partition and the property scheduled in the plaint is the

residential home of the petitioners and the property wherein the same is

situated having an extent of about 20 cents. The suit was decreed ex parte

and later the petitioners have filed an application to set aside the same. The

said application is pending. The 4th respondent obtained a copy of the

preliminary decree of partition and submitted an application before the 3rd

respondent seeking to effect mutation and to pay tax. The petitioners contend

that without even affording an opportunity to the petitioners, the 3rd

respondent collected basic tax from the 4th respondent. He was also issued

with possession certificate. The petitioners assert that even in the BTR, the

name and details of the petitioners are entered. The issuance of Exts.P5 and

P6 is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice, contends the

petitioners. It is further stated that in a suit for partition, at the time of

passing of a preliminary decree all that happens is a division of shares. Stating

all these aspects, the 2nd petitioner is stated to have filed a representation

before respondents 2 and 3. However, her grievance is that they have not

initiated any action on the same. It is on these contentions that this writ

petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P5 and P6 and for a further direction to

the respondents 2 and 3 to consider Ext.P7 representation and take a decision

in an expeditious manner.

3. I have heard Sri. Jacob Sebastian, the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners, Sri. L Rajesh Narayan, the learned counsel appearing for

the party respondent and the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned Government Pleader fairly submits that before

transferring the registry in the name of the 4th respondent, the petitioners

herein were not afforded an opportunity of being heard. It is submitted that

though the BTR stands in the name of the petitioners 2 and 3, it was in view of

the judgment passed by the Civil Court, that such an action was taken.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced. There appears to be

considerable merit in the submission of the learned counsel that before

transferring the registry to the name of the 4th respondent on the strength of

Ext.P1 judgment, the previous thandaper holders ought to have been granted

an opportunity of being heard. Admittedly, petitioners 2 and 3 who were

remitting tax in the property covered under Ext.P5 were not heard before

transferring the registry. Rule 18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules

contemplates that the parties effected by a decision of the revenue authorities

shall be granted an opportunity of being heard.

6. In that view of the matter, Exts.P5 and P6 cannot be sustained.

Exts.P5 and P6 will stand set aside. There will be a direction to the competent

among respondents 2 and 3 to take up Ext.P7 representation and take a

decision strictly in adherence to the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules

and with notice to the petitioners as well as the party respondent. The needful

shall be done within a period of two months from the date of production of a

copy of this judgment.

The petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with this

judgment before the concerned respondents for further action.

This writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE sru

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23814/2019

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED FEBRUARY 27, 2019 IN OS NO.532/2014 OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF (ADDITIONAL), PALAKKAD.

EXHIBIT P2          A TRUE COPY OF IA NO.786/2019 IN OS
                    NO.532/2014 OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF
                    (ADDITIONAL), PALAKKAD.

EXHIBIT P3          A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX PAID RECEIPT
                    IN THE NAME OF THE SECOND PETITIONER DATED
                    MAY 3, 2019.

EXHIBIT P4          A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX PAID RECEIPT
                    DATED MAY 3, 2019 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF
                    THE THIRD PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P5          A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX PAID RECEIPT
                    ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN THE NAME
                    OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 30.04.2019.

EXHIBIT P6          A TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
                    DATED JULY 10, 2019 ISSUED BY THE THIRD
                    RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE FOURTH
                    RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7          A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
                    AUGUST 19, 2019 SUBMITTED BY THE
                    PETITIONERS.

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS:        NIL