B.M Abdul Rahiman vs The Tahsildar, Manjeswaram
2021 Latest Caselaw 20069 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. 19182 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          B.M ABDUL RAHIMAN
          AGED 61 YEARS
          S/O MOHAMMED BALLAMPADY,
          KOIPADY VILLAGE ,
          PO KODIYAMME, KASARGOD DISTRICT, 671321

          BY ADVS.


          SURESH KUMAR KODOTH
          K.P.ANTONY BINU



RESPONDENTS:

    1.    TAHSILDAR,
          MANJESWARAM TALUK OFFICE, UPPALA
          KASARGOD DISTRICT, 671322

    2.    VILLAGE OFFICER,
          KOIPADY VILLAGE, PO KODIYAMME,
          KASARGOD DISTRICT, 671321

          BY ADVS.


          SRI. ASWIN SETHUMADHAVAN - SR.GP




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 19182 OF 2021
                                    2

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims to be the owner of a certain extent of land

in Koipady Village in Kasargod District and he claims right to it

through Ext.P1 document. The petitioner says that even though he has

been in exclusive ownership and possession of the said extent of land

and though he was paying land tax on it until 2015-16, as is evident

from Ext.P2, the 2nd respondent-Village Officer is now refusing to

allow him to do so, saying that there is Re Survey pending with respect

to the property in question.

2. The petitioner contends that the afore reason is not valid

enough for the 2nd respondent to refuse permission to him to remit land

tax on the property; and therefore, prays that he be directed to do so,

within the time frame fixed by this Court.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader - Sri.Aswin

Sethumadhavan, submitted that going by the documents produced by

the petitioner, the 2nd respondent appears to have not accepted the land

tax because the processes with respect to Re-Survey is still going on.

He submitted that, therefore, if land tax is now accepted, it will create

confusion in the future.

WP(C) NO. 19182 OF 2021

4. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the learned Senior

Government Pleader, because it is now well settled that remittance of

the land tax is only a fiscal matter, which does not conclusively

determine the title of the property in question. Therefore, if after the

Re-Survey, there are modifications to the survey number or to the

extent of the property, then certainly, necessary steps in that regard

will have to be taken by the competent Authorities and the petitioner

will also be obligated to abide by the same, subject to its available

rights.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition, directing the

2nd respondent to allow the petitioner to remit land tax on his property,

on him tendering the requisite amounts, without any avoidable delay.

Needless to say, the Re Survey proceedings will be continued

without being trammeled by any of the observations above and the

petitioner will abide by its final orders, subject to its rights in law.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE scs WP(C) NO. 19182 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17172/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 29.10.1991;

DOCUMENT NO.3005/1991 SRO KASARGOD

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATD 16.06.2015 FOR THE PAYMENT OF TAX FOR THE YEAR 2015-16

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 30.07.2021 BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT