Emmanuel Jose vs The Tahsildar (Land Records)
2021 Latest Caselaw 21056 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 28TH ASWINA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 29085 OF 2020
PETITIONER:

          EMMANUEL JOSE
          PAKKALLIL HOUSE, PULINCUNNOO P O,
          ALLEPPEY DISTRICT-688504.

          BY ADVS.
          TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
          SRI.THOMAS GEORGE



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS)
          PATTAMBI,
          PALAKKAD, PIN-679303.

    2     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
          VILAYUR VILLAGE OFFICER, PATTAMBI-679303.

    3     JACOB CHACKO
          VAZHAKOOTTAM HOUSE,
          VILAYUR, PATTAMBI-679307.

          BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER




          SMT. SURYA BINOY- SR. G.P




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 29085 OF 2020
                                   2

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims title over an extent of 12.47 Acres of

land, comprised of in Sy.No.177/4 of the Vilayur Village, on the

strength of Exts.P1, P3 and P5 documents. He alleges that,

however, inspite of this, Ext.P9 proceedings have been issued by

the 1st respondent - Tahsildar, instructing the 2nd respondent -

Village Officer, to allow the 3rd respondent to remit land tax on

this property.

2. The petitioner asserts that Ext.P9 has been issued

under a misconception and wrong appreciation of facts because

the extent owned by the 3rd respondent does not take in the extent

which is covered by his aforementioned title documents. The

petitioner says that he, therefore, preferred Exts.P12 and P13

requests before the Tahsildar; and alleges that no action has been

taken thereon until now.

3. In response to the afore submissions made on behalf of

the petitioner by Sri.Thomas George, the learned Senior WP(C) NO. 29085 OF 2020

Government pleader - Smt.K.Amminikutty, submitted that

Exts.P12 and P13 have not been received by the Tahsildar until

now and that, in any event to the matter, the said Authority has

already permitted remittance of tax, over the extent mentioned in

Ext.P9, by the 3rd respondent. She then added that, in fact,

another person by name Smt.Parukkutty has also made a claim

over the property in question; and therefore, that the Tahsildar has

not been in a position to make an evaluation of the said rival

claims, particularly because the legal opinion which he has

received - as is reflected in Ext.P9 - was to the effect that the 3 rd

respondent can be allowed to remit the land tax on the property

involved herein.

4. I notice from the files that even though summons from

this Court has been served validly on the 3rd respondent, he has

chosen not to be present in person or to be represented through

counsel.

5. When I evaluate the afore submissions and particularly WP(C) NO. 29085 OF 2020

the contentions of the petitioner, it becomes luculent that he

claims title over 6.3 Acres, through his father Sri.Joseph

Emmanuel, who is stated to have died in the year 1988. He then

says that, thereafter, there was a partition in his family, through

which he obtained 5.63 Acres as per Ext.P1 document; while the

balance of the total 12.47 Acres of land was purchased by him

through Exts.P3 and P5 Will Deeds. He further asserts that the

land tax had been permitted to be paid thereon as is perspicuous

from Exts.P2, P4 and P6. He says that inspite of this, no action

had been taken by the Tahsildar to transfer Registry of the

property in his name; but that, while so, Ext.P9 has been issued,

permitting the 3rd respondent to remit land tax on certain extents

which includes the aforementioned 12.47 Acres covered by

Exts.P1, P3 and P5.

6. The assertions of the petitioner being so, I am certain

that the matter will require to be considered by the competent

Tahsildar appropriately, since such rival claims can only be WP(C) NO. 29085 OF 2020

decided, at the first instance, by the said Authority, going by the

applicable Statutes, Rules and Regulations. This is more so

because, even as per the learned Senior Government pleader,

there is another claim over the property from a certain

Smt.Parukutty, which now makes it incumbent for the competent

Tahsildar to decide appositely without any further delay.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and

leave liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate

representation before the 1st respondent - Tahsildar; and if this is

done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment, the said Authority will hear him, the 4 th

respondent and any other person, who has made a claim over the

property in question, and then decide whether any modification to

Ext.P9 is required.

If, through the afore exercise, the Tahsildar is to find favour

with the petitioner's claim, then necessary orders modifying

Ext.P9 will be issued and apposite instructions will be issued to WP(C) NO. 29085 OF 2020

the Village Officer concerned with respect to the payment of land

tax on the property in question, including by refund of the

amounts, if any, already paid by the 3rd respondent, if it is so

warranted.

The afore exercise shall be completed by the Tahsildar as

expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from

the date on which the representations as above is preferred by the

petitioner before him.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS/20/10/2021 WP(C) NO. 29085 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29085/2020

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.2833/2008 OF THE SRO PULINKUNNOO.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.03.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2832/2008 OF SRO PULINCUNNOO.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 12.03.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2835/2008 OF SRO PULINCUNNOO.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 12.03.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NON-ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 15.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, VILAYUR.

EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, VILAYUR.

EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14/05/2020 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, VILAYUR.

EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL OPINION DATED 19.03.20 ATTACHED ALONG WITH EXT.P9.

EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28/5/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28/5/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S WP(C) NO. 29085 OF 2020

MOTHER.

EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 6.10.20 FROM THE PETITIONER.