Thankamani Joseph vs The Village Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 21352 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                        PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
       FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                              WP(C) NO. 23589 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

                  THANKAMANI JOSEPH
                  AGED 60 YEARS
                  W/O. JOSEPH, THUDATHIKUNNEL HOUSE,
                  NEDUNGOME POST, CHUNDAPARAMBA,
                  KANNUR, KERALA - 670631.

                  BY ADVS.
                  G.HARIHARAN
                  PRAVEEN.H.
                  K.S.SMITHA
                  JINU ANTONY
                  T.T.SHANIBA
                  M.V.VIPINDAS
                  AMAL DEV D
                  SISIRA M.SHIRINE



RESPONDENTS:

       1          THE VILLAGE OFFICER
                  THRIKKAIPATTA VILLAGE OFFICE, WAYANAD - 673577.

       2          THE TAHSILDAR
                  VYTHIRI TALUK, VYTHIRI, NH 212, WAYANAD - 673576.

       3          THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
                  WAYANAD, NH 212, CIVIL STATION, KAIRALI NAGAR,
                  KALPATTA, WAYANAD - 673122.


OTHER PRESENT:

                  SR GP SMT AMMINIKKUTTY


THIS       WRIT    PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
29.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 23589 OF 2021
                                2

                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that even though she is the owner of

the property covered by Ext.P1 Purchase Certificate, she is

now being refused permission to remit the land tax on it by the

1st respondent - Village Officer. She alleges that when she

made an application for this purpose, it is not even accepted.

2. The afore submissions of Smt. Jinu Antony - learned

counsel for the petitioner, were answered by the learned

Senior Government Pleader - Smt.K.Amminikutty, saying that

since the petitioner does not have a case that 1 st respondent

has rejected her application, she is at liberty to approach the

said Authority with an appropriate request, which shall

thereafter be considered in terms of law. She submitted that

the petitioner has not disclosed why she did not remit the land

tax on the property after Ext.P1 and therefore, that this is also

an issue that will have to be considered by the Village Officer

appropriately when she approaches him for the afore purpose.

Taking note of the afore submissions, I order this writ

petition to the limited extent of granting liberty to the WP(C) NO. 23589 OF 2021

petitioner to approach the 1st respondent - Village Officer with

an application seeking permission to remit land tax on the

property covered by Ext. P1; 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 afford an opportunity of being

heard to the petitioner; thus culminating in an appropriate

order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is

possible but not later than one month from the date of receipt

of such application.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ANB WP(C) NO. 23589 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23589/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DATED 15.06.1977.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. LR - B8-

31482/17 DATED 24.06.2017 ISSUED BY THE AND REVENUE COMMISSIONER.