Kerala High Court
Lakshmi vs State Of Kerala on 23 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 21544 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
LAKSHMI
AGED 76 YEARS
D/O.CHANDUKKUTTY, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, KARIYAD, KANNUR DISTRICT-
673316.
BY ADVS.
JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY
ANIL GEORGE
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, KANNUR-670002.
3 THE TAHSILDAR,
IRRITTY TALUK OFFICE, IRITTY, KANNUR-670705.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KALLIAD VILLAGE OFFICE, TALIPARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT-670593.
5 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) NO.II,
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICE, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR-670307.
6 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695009.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. SURYA BINOY- SR. G.P
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 21544 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P5
order of the Tahsildar, whereby, the permission granted to her to
remit land tax on her property comprised of 0.3035 Hectares have
been withdrawn. The petitioner says that Ext.P5 is egregiously
improper because she is still in possession of 0.0201 Hectares of
land, out of a larger extent, which was in her possession earlier;
but that consequent to the Sale Deeds executed by her in favour of
other persons, the afore extent is alone in her possession. She says
that, therefore, there was no requirement for the Tahsildar to have
cancelled the earlier permission granted to her on 24.09.2018 and
thus prays that Ext.P5 be set aside.
2. I have heard Sri.Joby Jacob Pulickekudy, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Smt.Surya Binoy, the learned Senior
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. Smt.Surya Binoy, learned Senior Government Pleader,
submitted that Ext.P5 is irreproachable because, as is recorded
therein, even though the petitioner is presently in ownership and
possession of only 0.0201 Hectares of land, she made an
application for remitting land tax on 0.3035 Hectares, suppressing
WP(C) NO. 21544 OF 2021
the fact that she had sold substantial portions therefrom in the
past. She pointed out that Ext.P5 would clearly show that when the
petitioner's application was considered, even though she had
pointed the lands which were sold by her, the earlier order -
namely which was referred as Item No.4 therein - was issued,
allowing her permission to remit land tax on 0.3035 Hectares of
land. She submitted that, therefore, the Tahsildar had no other
option but to cancel the earlier permission and to direct that the
petitioner be granted permission only to remit land tax on 0.0201
Hectares of land, which is presently in her possession. She
therefore, prayed that Ext.P5 be not interdicted.
4. In reply, Sri.Joby Jacob Pulickekudy, submitted that the
extents which is shown to be in ownership and possession of his
client in Ext.P5, is incorrect, because the actual extent with her,
presently is 30 cents. He submitted that his client will be in a
position to convince the Tahsildar appropriately, based on all her
documents, if an opportunity is granted.
5. Taking note of the afore submissions and since the only
controversy in this case is as to the actual extent which is now
available with the petitioner in her ownership and possession, I
WP(C) NO. 21544 OF 2021
deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition in the following
manner.
Resultantly and for the reasons above, I direct the petitioner
to mark appearance before the 3rd respondent - Tahsildar, with all
documents in her possession to show the extents in her ownership
and possession as on today, at 11.00 am on 03.12.2021; on which
day, the said Authority will either hear her and examine her
documents or fix another date for hearing; thus culminating in an
appropriate order, recording the actual extent in her ownership
and possession and then acceding to her request for remitting the
land tax thereon.
The afore shall be done by the 3 rd respondent - Tahsildar, as
expeditiously as is possible but not later than two weeks from
03.12.2021, so as to enable the petitioner to produce the same
before the competent Authorities with respect to the acquisition of
her property, which is stated to be now undergoing.
Needless to say, since the assessment of the extent of the
property now with the petitioner and payment of the land tax
thereon, has been ordered afore to be completed within the next
two weeks, I deem it appropriate to direct the 5 th respondent, in the
WP(C) NO. 21544 OF 2021
meanwhile, not to acquire the property until such time as the
petitioner is favoured with the order of the 3 rd respondent, in terms
of the afore directions.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
rp
WP(C) NO. 21544 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21544/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF DOCUMENT NO.44/3/1984 OF SRO
IRIKKOOR.
Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
12.12.1975.
Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT PAID BY THE
PETITIONER ON 06.09.2010.
Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
31.08.2015.
Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 07.02.2020 ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
