Kaniyamma vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 21631 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

         TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1943

                             WP(C) NO. 22159 OF 2021

PETITIONER:

     1         KANIYAMMA
               AGED 62 YEARS
               W/O GEORGE, IMMANUEL COTTAGE, CHINNAKKANAL P.O.UDUMBANCHOLA
               TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

     2         MARGARET,
               AGED 56 YEARS
               W/O JAPAMANI, CHELLAMMA COTTAGE, CHINNAKKANAL P.O.UDUMBANCHOLA
               TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

               BY ADV GEORGE ABRAHAM



RESPONDENTS:

     1         THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
               COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU, IDUKKI DISTIRICT-685 603.

     2         REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
               OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI
               DISTRICT-0685 613.

     3         TAHSILDAR,
               UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, NEDUMKANDAM P.O.IDUKKI DISTICT-685 553.

     4         SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LAND ASSIGNMENT),
               OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, RAJAKUMARI,
               IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 619

               SRI.JAFAR KHAN -SR.GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2021,

THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 22159 OF 2021

                                    2




                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be the wife and daughter of late

George and they claim possession and occupation of 0.1530 Hectres of

land, comprised of in Survey No.33/10, 33/13 of the Chinnakkanal

Village. They have, in substantiation produced on record Ext.P1

Purchase Certificate in favour of the aforementioned late George, as

also Ext.P2 Purchase Certificate obtained by the 2 nd petitioner

independently. They assert that they were paying land tax on the

properties until 2006-2007, as is evident from Ext.P3 and that late

George, while he was alive, had also remitted land tax, as is clear from

Ext.P4.

2. The petitioner says that, however, when, in the year 2016

or so, they were refused permission to remit the land tax, they

approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.18663/2017, which

culminated in Ext.P5 judgment, issuing specific directions to the

competent Authorities. They say that presumably, being unhappy with

the fact that they had approached this Court, the competent

Authorities have now issued Exts.P6 and P7, cancelling the Purchase

Certificates aforementioned and they contend that this is illegal and

unlawful, particularly because the discrepancy in survey number, WP(C) NO. 22159 OF 2021

which is now highlighted by the said Authorities, is only consequent to

a resurvey, in which sub division numbers ought to have been allotted

to the properties in their possession. The petitioners, therefore, pray

that Exts.P6 and P7 be set aside and the competent respondents be

directed to correct the entries in Exts.P1 and P2 Purchase Certificates,

in tune with the sub division numbers consequent to the resurvey.

3. Sri.Jafar Khan, learned Senior Government Pleader, in

response, submitted that the petitioner's afore assertions are not

factually correct because, on conducting a field verification, it has

been found that the properties covered by Exts.P1 and P2 Pattas are,

in fact, in the possession of various other persons, including a person

by name - Sri.Tomy Chacko. He submitted that, therefore, unless

Exts.P1 and P2 are canceled and fresh Purchase Certificates issued in

favour of the petitioners, their request for remitting land tax on the

properties occupied by them cannot be acceded to. He thus, prayed

that this Court allow the competent Authorities to complete

proceedings for such purpose without any avoidable delay.

4. In reply, Dr.George Abraham, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners, pointed out that, as stated above, the discrepancy

in the survey numbers are only on account of resurvey and that they

can be easily rectified and corrected by allotment of sub division WP(C) NO. 22159 OF 2021

numbers. He submitted that, for this purpose, Exts.P1 and P2

Purchase Certificates need not be cancelled as has been proposed

through Exts.P6 and P7; and reiteratingly, prayed that the reliefs

sought for in this writ petition be granted.

5. I have evaluated the afore submissions and have also

examined the materials available on record.

6. It is without contest that the petitioners have been in

possession and ownership of certain extents of land, on the strength of

Exts.P1 and P2 Purchase Certificates. The respondents do not have a

case that they are not in occupation of the said properties, but they

only say that consequent to the field verification, mistakes in the

survey numbers and boundaries of the properties in question have

been discovered. It is in such manner that they assert that Exts.P6 and

P7 have been issued to cancel Exts.P1 and P2 and to issue fresh

Purchase Certificates.

7. When I go through Exts.P6 and P7, it is indubitable that the

competent Authorities have embarked upon the enquiry mentioned

therein, based on a field verification and on the assertion that the

survey numbers and the boundaries of the properties are in variance

with the ones shown in Exts.P1 and P2.

8. However, the petitioners asserts the contrary and say that WP(C) NO. 22159 OF 2021

there are no changes in the boundaries, but that the survey numbers

of the properties in question have been altered on account of the re-

survey, which can be rectified by allotting sub division numbers.

9. In the conspectus of the afore, I am certain that the 3 rd

respondent - Tahsildar must hear the petitioners and decide whether

the issues with respect to the survey numbers mentioned in Exts.P1

and P2 Purchase Certificates can be rectified by the allotment of sub

division numbers and if it is so possible, then necessary action

thereon, must be completed immediately.

10. If on the other hand, the Tahsildar is to find that such a

course is not feasible and that fresh Purchase Certificates will have to

be issued to the petitioners, then action for the same shall be initiated

and completed without avoidable delay.

In the afore perspective, I order this writ petition and direct the

petitioners to mark appearance before the 3 rd respondent - Tahsildar

at 11.00 am on 17.11.2021; on which day, the said Authority will

either hear the petitioners or fix another date for hearing and then

complete the processes as ordered above, as expeditiously as is

possible, but not later than one month, in the event Exts.P1 and P2

Purchase Certificates can be rectified by allotment of sub division

numbers; or, on the contrary, if fresh Purchase Certificates are found WP(C) NO. 22159 OF 2021

necessary to be issued substituting Exts.P1 and P2, steps for such

purpose shall be completed within a period of four months from the

date on which the hearing as ordered above is completed.

SD/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE rp WP(C) NO. 22159 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22159/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE HUSBAND OF THE 1ST PETITIONER

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT PAID BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 11.9.2006

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 25.3.1999

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 5383/2019 AND CONNECTED MATTER DATED 26.2.2019

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEVIKULAM DATED 22.8.2019

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 29.2.2020