Kerala High Court
Ismail C.M vs The Tahsildar on 22 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.15236 OF 2015(D)
PETITIONER/S:
ISMAIL C.M.,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.MUHAMMED, CHOLAMUKATH HOUSE, AMMINIKKAD P.O.,
PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA
SMT.D.S.THUSHARA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE TAHSILDAR,
PERINTHALMANNA-679 322.
2 VILLAGE OFFICER,
THAZHEKODE, PERINTHALMANNA,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-686 697.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SHEEJA C.S.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.15236 OF 2015(D) 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that he is in possession and enjoyment of
property having an extent of 4 acres falling in Resurvey No.26/6 of
Thazhekode-II Village within the limits of Perinthalmanna Taluk. He
contends that the property originally belonged to a certain Nabeesa
Umma. She acquired the property on the strength of Exhibit P1 deed
vide No.2407/1977 dated 13.10.1977 of the Perinthalmanna Sub
Registrar's Office. According to the petitioner, based on his application,
Ext.P6 letter has been issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Nilambur
South Division to the SRO, Perinthalmanna informing that the property
having an extent of about 8 Acres in Sy. No.26/6 does not form part of
forest land. Later, based on the request made by his vendor, the Village
Officer has issued Ext.P7 sketch showing the location of the property
having an extent of 8 Acres covered under Document No.2407/77 and
situated in Sy. No.26/6 of Thazhekode Village. Armed with all these
documents, the petitioner is stated to have approached the 2nd
respondent and submitted an application for accepting basic tax. His
grievance is that the 2nd respondent refused to accede to the request of
the petitioner. In the said circumstances, he approached the 1st
respondent and reiterated his request. However, no action was taken. It
is in the afore circumstances that this writ petition is filed seeking a
direction to the 2nd respondent to accept basic tax in respect of the
property covered under Exts.P5 and P6 within a time frame.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 1 and 2.
It is contended that Exts.P4 and P5 documents are sham documents
and would not convey any right, title or possession of the property
described therein to the petitioner. It is further contended that the
petitioner has not approached the Village Officer seeking to accept
basic tax. Reference is made to Ext.R1(a) communication issued by the
Village officer to the Tahsildar on 8.6.2015 wherein he has stated that
no application had been filed by the petitioner before the 2nd
respondent for effecting mutation or to permit him to remit land tax. It
is further contended that the inquiry conducted by the revenue
authorities have revealed that on the strength of a partition deed vide
No.2407 of 1977 of the Perinthalmanna SRO, the vendor of the
petitioner, Smt. Nabeesa is said to have obtained title and possession of
about 8.715 Acres of property comprised in Sy. No.26/6 of Thazhekode
Village. However, thereafter, the aforesaid Nabeesa figures as assignor
in 21 documents registered at the SRO, Perinthalmanna. The list of
documents wherein the aforesaid Nabeesa figures as joint assignor has
been listed as Table A. Table A is extracted below for convenience.
Table A.
Sl. No. Document No. Extent (in acres)
1 4984/04 4.86 ½
2 4985/04 3.50
3 4986/04 2.41 ½
4 5403/04 8.80
5 5404/04 0.09.20
6 3658/05 0.03
7 3659/05 0.03
8 3660/05 0.03
9 3661/05 0.03
10 3662/05 0.03
11 3663/05 0.03
12 3664/05 0.03
13 3860/05 0.03
Total 19.91.2 Acres
3. The list of documents wherein Nabeesa figures as sole assignor
has been listed as Table B. Table B is extracted below for convenience.
Table B.
Sl. No. Document No. Extent (in acres)
1 2806/04 1.00
2 2444/07 2.54
3 2445/07 0.45
4 221/15 2.00
5 220/15 2.00
6 951/15 0.14
7 952/15 0.86
8 953/15 2.00
Total 10.99
4. According to the respondents, the extent of property assigned
as per various documents listed in Table A is 19.91.2 Acres and the
extent of properties assigned as per Table B is 10.99 Acres. According
to the respondents, when Nabeesa acquired rights only over 8.715
Acres as per Ext.P1 deed, she has managed to assign more than double
the extent on the cover of 21 documents. Except for three documents
vide Nos.951 of 2015, 952 of 2015 and 953 of 2015, all other
documents were executed much prior to Ext.P4 and P5 which were
executed in the year 2015. It is further stated that as per the revenue
records, the total extent of land in Sy. No.26/6 is 494.24 Acres and is
lying as a hilly track in an area known as Amminikadanmala. From the
aforesaid 494.24 Acres substantial portion has been notified as vested
forest as per order No. B1-5189/2000 dated 5.5.2001 and order No.
B1-5189/2000 dated 8.1.2008 passed by the Conservator of Forests
and Custodian of Vested Forest, Olavakkod Circle. It is further stated
that the Taluk Land Board, Perinthalmanna has initiated proceedings
against the legal heirs of Sri. N.P.Mohammed as SMP No.97/1977 and
as per order dated 20.2.2001, an extent of 15.15 Acres were taken
over from the joint possession of the legal heirs of Sri. N.P.Mohammed,
viz., Pathummakutty, Nabeesa and Aisha. It is contended that the
sequence of events would clearly show that the attempt of the
petitioner is to grab portions of property and by clandestinely remitting
the land tax.
5. Though the counter affidavit is filed on 18.11.2016, the
petitioner has not filed any reply affidavit to controvert the serious
contentions raised therein.
6. From the records it is apparent that the petitioner obtained
title from Smt. Nabeesa Umma, D/o. Late N.P.Mohammed, in the year
2015. Though the petitioner asserts that he had approached the
respondents seeking to effect mutation and to remit land tax, the
application said to have been filed by him has not been produced
before this Court. The respondents have produced Ext.R1(a) issued by
the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent reiterating that no such
application was filed. Furthermore, from the list of documents, which
have been made available by the learned Government Pleader, it is
apparent that Nabeesa, the vendor of the petitioner, had executed as
many as 21 documents transferring more than 20 Acres whereas she
acquired title and possession only over about 8 Acres of land. The
petitioner has no explanation to offer to the contentions advanced by
the respondents in their counter. In that view of the matter, the
contention of the respondents that the intention of the petitioner is to
abuse the process of law cannot be brushed aside. In the facts and
circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out
any case for interference.
This writ petition will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
Ps/22/3/2021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2407/1997
DATED 13.10.1977.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PREDECESSORS
IN INTEREST OF THE PETITIONER DATED
8.8.2014 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX PAID BY
NABEESA UMMA ON 21.4.2014.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.220/1/15
DATED 17.10.2014.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS NO.221/1/15
DATED 17.10.2014.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
21.8.2014 SENT BY THE DFO, NILAMBUR TO
THE SUB REGISTRAR, PERINTHALMANNA.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY
THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THAZHEKODE.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NO.57/2015/TKD DATED 8.06.2015.
EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT
ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATES OF THE
RESPECTIVE 13 CONVEYANCES MENTIONED IN
TABLE 'A'.
EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT
ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATES RELATING TO
THE 8 CONVEYANCES MENTIONED IN TABLE
'B'.
// TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
