Neena Paul vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 20515 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 20740 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

            NEENA PAUL, AGED 51 YEARS
            D/O. PAUL ATTOKKARAN, ATTOKKARAN HOUSE, AISWARYA
            GARDENS, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, PIN-680026.

            SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
            SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
            SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER
            SRI.SABU GEORGE



RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
            THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680003.

    2       THE THAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS),
            TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680003.

    3       THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
            KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, PANAMUKKU, NEDUPUZHA,
            THRISSUR-680007.

    4       SEBATIAN JONES, AGED 54 YEARS
            S/O. JONES, ATTOKKARAN HOUSE, ENGLISH CHURCH VIEW,
            MISSION QUARTERS, HIGH ROAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680001.



            SRI ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN- SR GP




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 20740 OF 2021
                                  2


                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P4 notice on various

grounds, including that the provision under which an enquiry

has been ordered therein has not been disclosed; and further

asserting that the Kerala Land Tax Act does not contemplate

any such enquiry.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Abraham

Babu, submitted that his client has already preferred Ext.P5

objections against Ext.P4 notice; and therefore, prayed that

the Village Officer be directed to consider the same, before

any further action on the said notice is taken forward.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader - Sri.Aswin

Sethumadhavan, submitted that if the petitioner only

requires Ext.P5 objections to be considered, before action on

Ext.P4 is taken, there does not appear to be any legal

impediment for the Village Officer in doing so; but prayed

that this Court may not make any affirmative declarations on

the entitlement of the petitioner to any relief and leave it to

the said Authority to take a decision on it in terms of law. . WP(C) NO. 20740 OF 2021

4. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition

and direct the Village Officer to take up Ext.P5 objections of

the petitioner, and dispose it of, after affording an

opportunity of being heard to the petitioner; thus

culminating in an appropriate order thereon.

Needless to say, any further action based on Ext.P4 will

be taken forward only after the order resultant to the afore

exercise is communicated to the petitioner.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 20740 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20740/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.

4953/2006 OF SRO, AYYANTHOLE DATED 24/08/2006.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.0581438 DATED 02/08/2019 OF KANIMANGALAM VILLAGE.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.2675/2019 OF AYYANTHOLE SRO DATED 01/11/2019.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 01/09/2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KANIMANGALAM.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION DATED 06/09/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.