Chandran vs The Village Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 20558 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. 19276 OF 2021

PETITIONER:

               CHANDRAN,
               AGED 55 YEARS,
               S/O. RAKKAN,
               PALATTUPARAMBIL (KUNNATHU),
               PARUTHIPRADESAM, VENNOOR P.O.,
               ELANADU VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK,
               THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 587.

               BY ADV SHIJU VARGHESE


RESPONDENTS:

     1         THE VILLAGE OFFICER
               ELANADU VILLAGE OFFICE,
               THALAPPILLY TALUK, VENNOOR P.O.,
               THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 587.

     2         THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
               CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, AYYANTHOLE P.O.,
               THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 003.

     3         TAHASILDAR,
               OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR,
               TALAPPILLY TALUK, TALAPPILLY P.O.,
               THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 683.

     4         ADDL.R4:THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
               THRISSUR, PIN-680 020.
               IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01-10-2021 IN WP(C)

OTHER PRESENT:

               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:
 W.P(C)No.19276 of 2021

                                       2



                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 01st day of October, 2021

The petitioner impugns Ext.P9 proceedings issued

by the Village Officer, refusing to grant him permission to

remit tax with respect to his property, comprised of in

Survey No.464/p1 of Elanad Village.

2. The petitioner points out that even though, in

Ext.P9, it is stated that he has been found not to be in

possession of the property, the real reason why he has not

been allowed to remit the land tax is because his

'Thandapper' account appears to have been deleted, without

following legal procedure, from the Register. He says that

this is evident from Paragraph 4 of Ext.P8 counter affidavit,

filed by the Village Officer in an earlier writ petition.

3. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P9 be set

aside and the jurisdictional Tahasildar (Land Records) be

directed to cause an enquiry into his complaint, that his

'Thandapper' account has been deleted in contravention of W.P(C)No.19276 of 2021

law.

4. The learned Senior Government Pleader -

Sri.Aswin Sethumadhavan, in response, submitted that, as

long as the Competent Authorities have found that

petitioner is not in possession of the property, he cannot be

allowed to remit the tax on it. He, however, added that, if

this Court is inclined to accede to the afore prayer of the

petitioner to cause an enquiry through the Tahasildar (Land

Records), he would not stand in the way; and prayed that

petitioner be directed to produce all his records before the

said Authority during such process.

5. When I evaluate the afore submissions, there is

little doubt that, going by Ext.P8 counter affidavit filed by the

Village Officer earlier before this Court, the petitioner's

'Thandapper' account itself has been removed from the

Register concerned. Obviously, this is a matter that will

require to engage the attention of the Tahasildar (Land

Records), since no other Authority can take a decision on this

effectively.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ W.P(C)No.19276 of 2021

petition and leave liberty to the petitioner to approach the

4th respondent - Tahasildar (Land Records), with an

appropriate application detailing all his grievances and

complaints; and if this is done within a period of two weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, said

Authority will cause an effective enquiry into the matter and

then take a decision as to if deletion of the petitioner's

'Thandapper' account from the Register has been done

validly or otherwise.

Once the said respondent completes the afore

exercise and issues the resultant order, petitioner will be at

liberty, depending upon the decision therein, to produce it

before the 1st respondent - Village Officer, for remittance of

the land tax, which shall then be considered by the said

Authority in terms of law.

Needless to say, in order to pave way for the afore

exercise to be done effectively, Ext.P9 is set aside.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE NR/01/10/2021 W.P(C)No.19276 of 2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DATED 20.12.1976.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 30.4.1984.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ROR DATED 13.5.2020.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.2/2020 DATED 10.6.2020.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 18.3.2020.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 29.6.2020.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.15683/2020, WITHOUT EXHIBITS, DATED 27.7.2020.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 10.2.2021.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.89/2020 DATED 24.8.2020 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(CIVIL) NO.15683/2020 DATED 8.7.2021.