Nisha Muhammed vs Kottuvally Grama Panchayat
2021 Latest Caselaw 20284 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021/8TH ASWINA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 16275 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

            NISHA MUHAMMED,
            AGED 46 YEARS,
            WIFE OF SHAHUL HAMEED, MARIKKAR,
            ASARIPARAMBIL HOUSE, AYYAPPANKAVU,
            PACHALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 012.


            BY ADVS.
            SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
            SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR

RESPONDENT:

            KOTTUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
            REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
            VALLUVALLY, KOONAMMAVU P.O.,
            ERNAKULAM-683 538.


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   30.09.2021,   THE    COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.16275/2021
                              :2 :




                         JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30th day of September, 2021

The petitioner, who owns 47.04 Cents of land in

Kottuvally Village, Parur Taluk, Ernakulam District has filed

this writ petition seeking to command the respondent to pass

appropriate orders by making appropriate changes in the

Property Tax Register by including the numbers of the

buildings which is the subject matter of Ext.P4 Property Tax

Receipt.

2. The petitioner purchased the land in question on

11.08.2020 from Ms. Preetha Anand Babu. The Land Tax

Receipt issued is produced as Ext.P1. It appears that the

petitioner applied for a Building Permit to renovate a building,

which was existing in the property. On that application, the

Secretary to the Panchayat passed an order dated

11.02.2019 stating that the construction being made by the WP(C) No.16275/2021

petitioner is in violation of the Building Rules and there is a

discrepancies in the carpet area mentioned in the Building

Permit application and in the Sale Deed. Therefore, the

petitioner was required to stop the construction. The said

Ext.P5 Stop Memo dated 11.02.2019 has been challenged by

the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17960 of 2020.

3. In W.P.(C) No.17960 of 2020, this Court passed an

interim order on 24.09.2020 holding that there is no

justification for the 1st respondent-Panchayat to prevent the

petitioner from demolishing the building in the property. The

said writ petition is still pending.

4. While so the petitioner submitted an application to

make necessary correction in the Building Tax Register, as

the building previously owned by Ms. Preetha Ananda Babu

is currently held by the petitioner. However, the 1 st

respondent issued communication to the petitioner stating

that since the petitioner has demolished the earlier building

and has constructed a new building and the building which is WP(C) No.16275/2021

mentioned in the Sale Deed produced by the petitioner along

with the application does not exist any more, the application

of the petitioner cannot be entertained.

5. Though notice were issued to the Panchayat in

W.P.(C) No.16275 of 2021 and W.P.(C) No. 17960 of 2020,

there is no appearance for the Panchayat Authorities.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

7. The fact that the petitioner has purchased the

property in question from Ms. Preetha Ananda Babu, is

evident from the pleadings contained in paragraph 1 of the

writ petition. Since the petitioner is the owner of the property,

the building existed there should be made in the name of the

petitioner in the Property Tax Register. The fact that the

earlier building was demolished and another building is

constructed there upon cannot be a ground to refuse change

of particulars in the Property Tax Register. WP(C) No.16275/2021

8. The legality of the building construction is in

consideration in W.P.(C) No.17960 of 2020. In such

circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that

the request of the petitioner for change of name of ownership

of the Building in the Property Tax Register maintained by the

1st respondent-Panchayat need not be refused.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of setting

aside Ext.P2 order and directing the respondent to pass

appropriate orders by making appropriate changes in the

Property Tax Register by showing the name of the petitioner

as the owner of the building in question.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE SR WP(C) No.16275/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16275/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, ONLINE ON 20.08.2020.

Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C3-5377/2021 DATED 03.08.2021 OF THE RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.17960 OF 2020 DATED 24.09.2020. Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2021-22 (1ST AND 2ND HALF) ON 30.06.2021 IN THE NAME OF PRETHA ANAND BABU.