Eliya Foundation Trust vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 20007 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

         FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 2ND ASWINA, 1943

                            WP(C) NO. 20307 OF 2020

PETITIONER:

               ELIYA FOUNDATION TRUST
               32/1495-A, 1ST FLOOR,
               CHAKOS CHAMBERS, CIVIL LINE ROAD,
               PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI.PIN-682 025
               REPRESENTED BY MANAGING TRUSTEE MR.DONEY VARGHESE,
               REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE MANAGING
               TRUSTEE
               MR.POULOSE.A.P,
               AGED 62 YEARS,
               S/O ABRAHAM POULOSE,
               ALAVATHIL HOUSE,
               PUTHENCRUZ, PANCODE (P.O),
               ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN -682310


               BY ADVS.
               JAWAHAR JOSE
               SRI.VARGHESE J. PUNNACHALIL


RESPONDENTS:

     1         THE STATE OF KERALA
               REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,
               REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
               GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001.

     2         THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
               REVENUE COMPLEX,
               PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM (P.O),
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 033

     3         THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
               DEVIKULAM, DEVIKULAM CIRCULAR ROAD,
               KANNAN DEVAN HILLS,
               IDUKKI.PIN-685613

     4         THE TAHSILDAR
               DEVIKULAM CIRCULAR ROAD,
               KANNAN DEVAN HILLS,
               IDUKKI PIN-685 613

     5         THE VILLAGE OFFICER
               VATTAVADA, VATTAVADA (P.O.),
               IDUKKI.PIN-685 615

               BY ADV SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN,ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL
 W.P(C)No.20307 of 2020

                                           2


  OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI. JAFFER KHAN - SR.GP



        THIS   WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)       HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON

  24.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C)No.20307 of 2020

                                  3




                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24th day of September, 2021

The petitioner, which is stated to be a registered

Trust, has approached this Court impugning Ext.P7 order of

the 3rd respondent - Sub Collector (subsequently, merged

with the Office of RDO) which has refused their request for

remitting tax with respect to a property covered by Ext.P1,

merely saying that there are various issues with respect to

the properties in the area, where it is situated, relating to

'Thandapper' accounts, Survey Nos. and such other.

2. The petitioner says that the 3rd respondent could

not have abdicated his duty to decide their claim, by

referring the matter to the Land Revenue Commissioner; and

thus pray that Ext.P7 be set aside and the competent

Authority be directed to accept tax from them, subject to the

proceedings which is now stated to be pending against the W.P(C)No.20307 of 2020

property in question.

3. I have heard Sri.Jawahar Jose - learned counsel for

the petitioner and Sri.Jafar Khan - learned Senior

Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents.

4. Sri.Jafar Khan, pointing out to Ext.P7, informed me

that the property where the petitioner's land is situated

comes within the Vattavada Village and that several

complaints with respect to the Survey Nos. and 'Thandapper'

accounts of several properties in that area have been now

obtained. He submitted that this issue, which requires a

comprehensive evaluation, has been, therefore, referred by

the Government - through G.O(Rt) No.4305/2019/G.A.D

dated 20.07.2019 - to a Special Officer, who is the Land

Revenue Commissioner. He asserted that the 3rd

respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer has, consequently,

correctly referred the matter to the said Special Officer;

adding that the petitioner cannot stand in the way of the

Special Officer taking necessary action in terms of law. He W.P(C)No.20307 of 2020

concluded praying that the request of the petitioner for

remittance of tax on the property in question, be not granted

until such time as the said enquiry is completed.

5. When I hear the learned Senior Government

Pleader as afore, the one singular problem which I find is

that, even though the enquiry has been ordered as early as in

the year 2019, admittedly, it has not been completed by the

Special Officer, even more than two years and half

thereafter.

6. Obviously, therefore, the petitioner cannot be

made to wait ad infinitum for the process to be over, even

though they are claiming the property on the strength of

Ext.P1 document, the prior title holder of which is the

Managing Trustee of the petitioner Trust. This is more so

because it is now well settled, through several judgments of

this Court and that of the Honourable Supreme Court, that

merely because a person or entity is allowed to remit land

tax, it would not obtain to him or them any special right - W.P(C)No.20307 of 2020

either in equity or in law- to claim title, since that is a matter

which will have to be decided through appropriate process

under the civil law.

In the afore context, even when an enquiry is being

continued against the various properties in the Vattavada

Village, it would not alter the afore position or incapacitate

the petitioner from paying land tax on their property, which

is covered by a proper title deed because, if, through such

enquiry, it is finally found that there is a mistake in the

'Thandapper' or the Survey Nos. or the extent of the property

in question, necessary consequential processes will certainly

continue under the provisions of law and the petitioner,

subject to their rights under the applicable Rules and

Regulations, will have to adhere to the same.

I am persuaded to the above opinion for the

additional reason that no where in this case have the

respondents impelled any mistake specifically with respect to

the property of the petitioner, but the suspicion above W.P(C)No.20307 of 2020

recorded is a general one, relating to all the properties of

Vattavada Village.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ

petition and direct the 5th respondent - Village Officer, to

permit the petitioner to remit the land tax with respect to the

property covered by Ext.P1, as and when it is tendered by

them; however, making it clear that all processes with

respect to the extents in the village in question will continue

untrammeled by my observations above; and should any

order be issued to the detriment of the petitioner, they will

abide by it, subject to their rights of legal redress against it.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

NR/24/09/2021 W.P(C)No.20307 of 2020

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 17.5.2017,

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION WHICH WAS SUBMITTED PETITIONER IN THE PRESCRIBED FORMAT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 13.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 28.1.2017 OF THE VENDOR OF EXHIBIT-P1 SALE DEED.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 23.3.2017.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.2.2020 IN WP(C) NO.3925/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.6.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 10.5.2018 BEARING NUMBER G.O.(M.S).NO.178/2018/REV.

EXHIBIT P8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 20.7.2019 BEARING NUMBER G.O.(RT).NO.4305/2019/G.A.D.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 16.2.2015 BEARING NUMBER G.O.(MS).N0.69/2015/RD.