Ashraf K.P vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 18159 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 16110 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:

    1     ASHRAF K.P.,
          AGED 50 YEARS
          S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, AMBALAPURAYA VEEDU, PERUVALLOOR P.O.,
          MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

    2     FATHIMA.C.,
          AGED 45 YEARS
          W/O.ASHRAF.K.P., AMBALAPURAYA VEEDU, PERUVALLOOR P.O.,
          MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

          BY ADVS.
          K.P.SUDHEER
          K.BINCYMOL


RESPONDENTS:
     1     STATE OF KERALA,
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
           SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

    2     THE TAHASILDAR, TIRURANGADI TALUK,
          MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 306.

    3     THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUVALLUR,
          PADIKKAL-KARUVANKALLU ROAD, PARAMBIL PEEDIKA,
          PERUVALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 317.

    4     THE TALUK LAND BOARD,
          TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 306,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

          SRI ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 16110 OF 2021
                                    2

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court with an

allegation that 3rd respondent is refusing to permit them to remit

the land tax with respect to the property covered by Exts.P1 to

P5, solely on account of a suspicion that there is a ceiling case

pending against the same. The petitioners say that, as is evident

from Ext.P8 judgment, they have full rights over the property in

question; but that refusal of the 3rd respondent in allowing to

remit the land tax is robbing them of their valuable ownership

rights. They, therefore, pray that 3rd respondent be directed to

permit them to remit the land tax with respect to the property in

question, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. In response, Sri.Ashwin Sethumadhavan - learned

Senior Government Pleader, submitted that since there is a land

ceiling case already pending against the property in question, the

3rd respondent - Village Officer, is incapacitated from accepting

the tax on the property; but he added that if this Court is so

inclined, they are willing to accept it on condition that necessary WP(C) NO. 16110 OF 2021

endorsement will be made on the tax receipt showing the

pendency of the ceiling case. He also prayed that merely because

the petitioners are allowed to remit the land tax, they may not be

allowed to claim any special right, either in equity or in law.

3. The petitioners, in reply, submitted that the afore stand

of the respondents cannot hold water because, as is evident from

Ext.P2, their predecessor- in-interest has already been issued with

a proper purchase certificate, under the provisions of the Kerala

Land Reforms Act and consequently, that there is no justification

for the 3rd respondent in refusing to accept the land tax from them.

4. When I consider the afore submissions, it is without

doubt that merely because a ceiling case is pending on the

property, the 3rd respondent - Village Officer, cannot refuse

acceptance of tax from the title holder, because if the ceiling case

goes to their detriment, then certainly, they are obligated to act

and adhere by its terms.

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and

direct the 3rd respondent to accept the land tax with respect to the WP(C) NO. 16110 OF 2021

property covered by Exts.P1 to P5 from the petitioners, with an

endorsement that a ceiling case is pending against the same in the

resultant tax receipts, provided there are no other legal

impediment standing in the way of the same being done.

The afore shall be done by the 3rd respondent without any

avoidable delay; but not later than one week from the date on

which the petitioners approaches with a certified copy of this

judgment.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS/03/09/2021 WP(C) NO. 16110 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16110/2021

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 27.01.1981 REGISTERED AS DOC.NO.337/1981 OF TIRURANGADI SRO EXECUTED BY MAMMAD MOLLA IN FAVOUR OF HIS DAUGHTER ITHACHU.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.13/1991 DATED 16.01.1991 IN SM PROCEEDINGS NO.44/1986 ON THE FILE OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, PARAPPANANGADI.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.2425/1992 OF THENHIPPALAM SRO.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 27.01.1993 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.379/1993 OF THENHIPPALAM SRO.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED 06.05.1998 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.1259/1998 OF THENHIPPALAM SRO.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.10.1998 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 19.10.2001 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 08.11.2016 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.25115/2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.