Dr. Raju Mathew vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 1071 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 7TH MAGHA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 12118 OF 2020
PETITIONER:

          DR. RAJU MATHEW,
          AGED 45 YEARS
          S/O. M.C.MATHEW, MELVETTOM HOUSE, MARANGATTUPALLY
          POST, KOTTAYAM-686635.

          BY ADV JOSEPH T.JOHN



RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI-685531.

    2     THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
          VAGAMON VILLAGE OFFICE, PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI
          DISTRICT-685501.

          BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER



OTHER PRESENT:

          SRI. S. RENJITH - SPL.GP




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 12118 OF 2020               2

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a

direction to the 2nd respondent - Village Officer, to

permit him to remit the land tax with respect to the

property covered by Ext.P1 and to issue him a

Possession Certificate with respect to the same.

2. The petitioner says that even though he has

derived title over the property in question validly

and though its transfer of Registry was effected in

his favour, thus being allowed to remit land tax

thereon even in the year 2020 - as is evident from

Ext.P3, when he applied for a Possession Certificate

it has been rejected. He says that this is absolutely

illegal because he had been given a Possession

Certificate in the past with respect to the same

property, which is manifest from Ext.P4, and also

because the original title deed with respect to it,

namely the 'Purchase Certificate' in favour of his

predecessor-in-interest, is still in force and never

has been set aside through a process of law. He

concluded by saying that after the filing of this writ

petition, even land tax has not been allowed to be

remitted by him.

3. The petitioner thus prays that 2nd respondent be

directed to allow him to remit the basic tax, as also

to issue to him a Possession Certificate with respect

to the property in question.

4. In response to the afore submissions of

Shri.Joseph T.John, the learned Special Government

Pleader - Sri. S.Ranjith, submitted that there is an

enquiry now initiated against various properties,

including the one claimed by the petitioner; and that

genuineness of the Purchase Certificate relied upon by

him is also under a cloud. He added that the competent

respondents are now completing such proceedings in

terms of law and thus prayed that this writ petition

be dismissed.

5. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the

afore submissions of the learned Special Government

Pleader, because it is now well settled - without

requirement of any reinstatement - that even if any

proceedings are pending against the property with

respect to the Purchase Certificate covered by it,

acceptance of basic tax cannot be inhibited nor can

other ownership and possession certificates be denied.

This is because, until the Purchase Certificate is

validly set aside through a process of law,

presumption of genuineness remains in its favour as

per Section 72K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act; and

consequently, the 2nd respondent cannot deny the

reliefs sought for by the petitioner in this writ

petition.

For the afore reasons, I order this writ petition

and direct the 2nd respondent to accept the basic tax

from the petitioner with respect to the property

covered by his title documents, as also to issue him a

Possession Certificate as prayed for. While doing so,

I also leave liberty to the 2nd respondent to make an

endorsement on the documents that an enquiry on the

Purchase Certificate relating to the property is going

on and that these certificates are issued subject to

its final outcome.

The 2nd respondent shall comply with the afore

directions as expeditiously as is possible, but not

later than two weeks from the date on which the

petitioner approaches the said Authority with the

amount required for remitting the land tax.

At this time, Shri.Joseph T.John - learned counsel

for the petitioner, pleaded that his client be also

allowed to approach the Secretary of the Vagamon Grama

Panchayat for numbering the building constructed in

the property in question on the strength of Ext.P6

permit; and that said Authority be directed to do so

at the earliest.

With respect to this plea, I am certain that once

the petitioner obtains the tax receipt, he can

approach the afore Officer appropriately, who will

then consider numbering of the building in terms of

law.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/27.1

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12118/2020

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED DATED 27/12/2018.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS DATED 25/02/2020.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPTS DATED 02/06/2020.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 23/03/2019.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ON 23/03/2019.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT FROM ELAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH ON 05/02/2019.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.27740/2019 DATED 31/01/2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.23655/2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM DATED 29.10.2201.