Kerala High Court
P.M.Rajan vs State Of Kerala on 3 September, 2021
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. 14755 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
P.M.RAJAN
AGED 67 YEARS
"SHIMI NIVAS",THANNIMOODU,
IRINJAYAM,PAZHAKUTTY,NEDUMANGAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
M.NARENDRA KUMAR
M.J.SAJITHA(K/000218/2006)-23705
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF
REVENUE,
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695001.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,CIVIL STATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.
3 TAHSILDAR( L R),
TALUK OFFICE,NEDUMANGAD TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695541.
SMT C.S SREEJA - 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. 14755 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner submits that he is the absolute owner in
possession of 4 cents of land comprised of Re-survey No.272-14 of
Anad Village, Nedumangadu Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram and that he
had purchased a larger extent of land of 7 cents, as per sale deed
No.5289 of 1995 of Sub Registry Office, Nedumangadu.
2. According to the petitioner, even though he was remitting
tax on the property in the past without any impediment, as is evident
from Ext.P3, when a Re-Survey of the property was done, the
respondents refused to allow him to do so thereafter, saying that the
old records with respect to the area in question are not available.
3. The petitioner submits that, therefore, when he made an
application for remittance of tax on his property, it is rejected through
Ext.P9 by the 3rd respondent - Tahsildar, merely for the reason that
the documents with respect to the extent claimed by the petitioner is
not available in the office of the Central Survey and consequently that
it cannot be verified if there is any "puramboke" included within it.
He asserts that Ext.P9 is egregiously improper, because stated above,
WP(C) NO. 14755 OF 2021
he had been paying tax on the larger extent for the last several years
and that it is only on account of the Re-survey that the controversy has
now arisen. He, therefore, prays that Ext.P9 be set aside and the 3 rd
respondent - Tahsildar, be directed to reconsider the matter and issue
appropriate orders, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
4. The afore submissions of Sri.M.Narendra Kumar - learned
counsel for the petitioner, were refuted by the learned Government
Pleader - Smt.C.S.Sreeja, submitting that the 3 rd respondent -
Tahsildar, is without error in having issued Ext.P9, since he is
incapacitated from acting upon the application of the petitioner in the
absence of proper documents. She submitted that, therefore, unless
the petitioner is able to establish that this property is not a
"puramboke", then his application for payment of tax on it cannot be
allowed.
5. I am afraid that the afore submissions of the learned
Government Pleader cannot appeal to this Court because, when the
petitioner approached the Authority for permission to remit tax based
on an earlier tax receipt, it could not have been normally declined
solely for the reason that the survey or revenue records with respect to
WP(C) NO. 14755 OF 2021
the same is missing. This is more so because, if the Authorities have a
case that the petitioner's property taken in any "puramboke", then it is
for them to prove it and to take necessary action against the same, but
they cannot ask the petitioner to lead negative evidence and then
decline his request for permission to pay land tax.
In the afore circumstances, I have no doubt that Ext.P9 cannot
obtain approval from this Court.
Resultantly, this writ petition is allowed and Ext.P9 is set aside,
with a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent - Tahsildar to
reconsider the matter, adverting specifically to the earlier tax records
and title deeds of the document of the property in question - to be
produced by the petitioner before him, if he has not already done so -
and thus issue appropriate fresh orders thereon, as expeditiously as is
possible, but not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
SAS/03/09/2021 JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 14755 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14755/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.5289 OF 1995 DATED
15.11.1995 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE,NEDUMANGAD
EVIDENCING THE PURCHASE OF SEVEN CENTS OF
PROPERTY WITH A SMALL BUILDING BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE NO.A5-1/95
DATED 11.01.1996 IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING KNO.A
P II-120 IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4518 OF 1978 OF SRO
NEDUMANGAD DATED 22.12.1978
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 01.06.2012 IN
FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11.06.2012
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
TAHSILDAR,NEDUMANGAD
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 12.06.2012
SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE
TAHSILDAR,NEDUMANGAD
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THAT THE
PETITIONER IS IN POSSESSION OF 4.5 CENTRS OF
PROPERTY WITH OLD BUILDING.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED -07.06.2016 IN
FORM NO.10 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 08.12.2016 IN
FORM NO.8
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.03.2020 ISSUED
BY THE TAHSILDAR TO THE PETITIONER ON 11.2.2021.
