Bhagyalakshmi vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 18846 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 19TH BHADRA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 13488 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

            BHAGYALAKSHMI
            AGED 49 YEARS
            W/O. GOPINATHAN, GOPIKA HOUSE, NARUKARA P.O.,
            PANICKERS' COLONY STREET, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-
            673122.

            BY ADV P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL



RESPONDENTS:

       1     THE STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
             REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

       2     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
             COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-
             676505.

       3     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
             WANDOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679328.


        THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON    10.09.2021,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 13488 OF 2021            2

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be the owner of 10

cents of land, comprised of in Resurvey No.511/14

of the Wandoor Village, Nilambur Taluk and she says

that she obtained title to the same through Ext.P1

Sale Deed, executed in her favour by a certain

Shri.Vasudevan Namboodirippad on 17.10.2005.

2. The petitioner asserts that she is entitled

to remit Land Tax with respect to the extent in her

name and therefore, that when she approached the

District Collector, Malappuram, through Ext.P5

request, it was rejected through Ext.P6, saying

that there is a ceiling case registered in the name

of the afore mentioned Shri.Vasudevan

Namboodirippad and that objections has been raised

with respect to the account of the land in his name

by a lady by name Smt.Vasantha Antharjanam.

3. The petitioner points out that, as is

evident from Ext.P6, the District Collector has

relied upon Ext.P4 proceedings dated 07.12.2010,

wherein, it has been averred that Smt.Vasantha

Antharjanam was directed to approach the competent

Civil Court under Section 10 of the Land Tax Act to

establish her rights. She then asserts that

Smt.Vasantha Antharjanam has not approached any

Court nor she obtained any orders and therefore,

that the reluctance of the Authorities to accept

Land Tax from her at this point of time is illegal

and unlawful.

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

be set aside and the competent Authority be

directed to Transfer Registry of the property in

her favour and to accept Land Tax from her, within

a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

5. I have heard Shri.Mohamed Jameel, learned

counsel for the petitioner and Shri.Aswin

Sethumadhavan, learned Senior Government Pleader

appearing for the respondents.

6. Shri.Aswin Sethumadhavan began his

submissions relying upon Ext.P4, to show me that a

land ceiling case is still pending against

Shri.Vasudevan Namboodirippad; and that with

respect to the same, Smt.Vasantha Antharjanam had

approached this Court by filing W.P(C)No.14591 of

2005, which was disposed of directing the Authority

to hear her and take a decision on her complaint.

He says that it is in such circumstances that

Ext.P4 order had been issued by the District

Collector in the year 2010, ordering that tax on

the property be not accepted from many person, thus

leaving liberty to Smt.Vasantha Antharjanam to

approach the competent Civil Court under Section

10 of the Land Tax Act.

7. However, to a pointed question of this Court

Shri.Aswin Sethumadhavan conceded that the

respondents are not aware if Smt.Vasantha

Antharjanam has approached the competent Civil

Court, as mentioned in Ext.P4; or whether she has

obtained any interdictory orders and admitted that

as of now no such orders are on file.

8. When I consider the afore submissions, there

can be no doubt that the petitioner's transaction

from Shri.Vasudevan Namboodirippad was as early as

in the year 2005. Going by Ext.P4, there was a land

ceiling case against Shri.Vasudevan Namboodirippad

at that time, in which a claim was also made by the

afore mentioned Smt.Vasantha Antharjanam. When

Smt.Vasantha Antharjanam approached this Court in

W.P(C)No.14591 of 2005, it was disposed of by this

Court directing the District Collector to take a

decision thereon, which led to Ext.P4, wherein, the

said Authority asked her to approach the competent

Civil Court under the Land Tax Act.

9. However, since nothing has been brought on

record by the respondents to show that Smt.Vasantha

Antharjanam has approached such a Court or obtained

any interdictory orders, I fail to understand how

they can still maintain that the petitioner cannot

be allowed to pay Land Tax or to seek Transfer of

Registry of the property in question in her name,

after more than 6 years thereafter.

10. I am, therefore, of the firm view that

Ext.P6 cannot find favour in law; and that the

District Collector is obligated to consider Ext.P5

on its merits, leading to appropriate orders

therein without any avoidable delay.

Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and set

aside Ext.P6; with a consequential direction to the

2nd respondent - District Collector to reconsider

Ext.P5 application of the petitioner and issue

appropriate orders thereon, after affording an

opportunity of being heard to her as expeditiously

as is possible, but not later than one month from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, if, during the afore exercise,

any information is obtained by the District

Collector as to any order obtained by Smt.Vasantha

Antharjanam from any competent Court or competent

Authority, then she will also be heard before it is

completed; but if no such orders are available,

then this requirement need not be complied with.

It goes without saying that the ceiling case

against Shri.Vasudevan Namboodirippad will continue

notwithstanding the observations herein and that

the petitioner will be bound by the resultant

orders to be issued therein, since the liability

always runs with the property, subject to his legal

remedies.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/23.9

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13488/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.5376/1 OF S.R.O. WANDOOR.

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 4.12.2004.

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 8.12.2004 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, WANDOOR.

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.12.2010.

Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF PETITIONER.

Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.