Savithri vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 20754 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 19427 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          SAVITHRI, AGED 68 YEARS, W/O.LATE SUBRAMANIAN NAMBIDI,
          RAYIRIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, KATTILANGADI, TANUR P.O.,
          MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 302.

          BY ADVS.
          P.T.SHEEJISH
          HARIKIRAN.M
          JASHITHA VIJAYAN
          STEPHY GRACE RAJ
          A.ABDUL RAHMAN
          PRAVEENKUMAR P.
          AKHILA SRIDHARAN


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, COLLECTORATE,
          UP HILL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA-676 504.

    2     THE THAHSILDAR-LAND RECORDS,
          TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, TIRUR,
          MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN-676 101.

    3     THE VILLAGE OFFICER, OZHUR VILLAGE,
          OZHUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 307.

          BY ADV.SMT. K AMMINIKUTTY - SR GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 19427 OF 2021
                                 -2-

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P6 order of the 2nd

respondent - Tahsildar, as per which, her request for

remittance of land tax on her property, comprised of

38 cents in Sy.No.28/4 of Ozhur Village, has been

rejected.

2. The petitioner concedes that, as per her

title document, the survey number has been shown as

28/1, but that this is only a mistake because, as is

evident from Ext.P6 itself, there is no dispute as

regards the identity of the property or of its

boundaries, nor are there title disputes with respect

to the same.

3. The petitioner says that, therefore, instead

of rejecting her application, the Tahsildar ought to

have considered her plea for rectification of the

survey number and for remittance of land tax; and that

his refusal to do so can only be construed to be

abdication of duty.

WP(C) NO. 19427 OF 2021

4. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P6

be set aside and the 2nd respondent - Tahsildar, be

directed to reconsider the matter, adverting to Ext.P7

Hearing Notes, wherein, she says that she has already

explained her case with respect to the title document

and the survey number involved.

5. Smt.K.Amminikutty - learned Senior Government

Pleader, submitted that Ext.P6 cannot be challenged by

the petitioner because, as is limpid therefrom, the

petitioner herself admits that there is a mistake in

her title document, as regards the survey number of

the property.

6. Smt.K.Amminikutty then pointed out that, as

can be seen from reference No.4 in Ext.P6, a Temple

Trustee Board has also filed certain objections

against permitting the petitioner to remit the land

tax. She, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be

dismissed.

7. When I consider the afore submissions, there

can be little doubt that if the petitioner's property WP(C) NO. 19427 OF 2021

is comprised of in Sy.No.28/4, merely because it is

shown incorrectly in the title documents, it will not

be justified for the Tahsildar to reject her request

for remittance of land tax because, the said Authority

is also competent to verify whether the survey number

has been correctly recorded and to take steps for its

rectification, if it is so warranted.

8. As regards the Temple Trustee Board referred

to by the learned Senior Government Pleader is

concerned, they must also be heard because, if their

objection is only that the petitioner cannot be

allowed to remit land tax in any property comprised of

in Sy.No.28/1, which is the one recorded in the

document, then the controversy can easily be resolved.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ

petition and set aside Ext.P6; with a consequential

direction to the 2nd respondent - Tahsildar to

reconsider the petitioner's application, adverting to

Ext.P7 Hearing Note and after affording her, as also

the competent person of the Temple Trustee Board, an WP(C) NO. 19427 OF 2021

opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an

appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is

possible, but not later than two months from the date

of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

I make it clear that if the petitioner is able to

convince the 2nd respondent that there is a mistake in

her title deed with respect to the survey number

recorded therein, then the said Authority will also

take or initiate necessary steps for rectification of

the records, as per law and subject to due process

being followed.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 19427 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19427/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DOCUMENT NO.1327/1983 OF SRO TANUR DATED 30.06.1983.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 12.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 20.03.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 16.07.2020 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.12878/2020 DATED 07.10.2020.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.05.2021 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS ADVOCATE BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE