Babu Kalladiyil vs Meenangadi Panchayat
2022 Latest Caselaw 1255 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

          FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 8TH MAGHA, 1943

                         WP(C) NO. 31034 OF 2015

PETITIONER/S:

           BABU KALLADIYIL
           AGED 44 YEARS
           S/O.JOHN, RESIDING AT KALLADIYIL HOUSE, MEENANGADI P.O,
           PURAKKADY VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK.
           BY ADV SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH


RESPONDENT/S:

     1     MEENANGADI PANCHAYAT
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MEENANGADI PANCHAYAT,
           WAYANAD DISTRICT. 673 591.
     2     KUNJALI
           S/O.LATE PUTHUSSERY MOOSA, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, VAZHAKAD
           AMSOM DESOM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 673 542.
           BY ADV SMT.TESSY JOSE



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.01.2022,

     THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
  W.P.(C) No. 31034/2015                   :2:




               Dated this the 28th day of January, 2022.

                              JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following

reliefs:

1. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the originals relating to Ext. P3 and order transferring the ownership of building Nos. MP 10/194, 193, 192 from the petitioner and quash the same.

2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing or compelling the first respondent to accept building tax with regard to building Nos. MP 10/194, 193, 192 in favour of the petitioner as it was existed prior to the issuance of proceedings culminated on Ext. P3.

2. The contention put forth by the petitioner, who is a resident

within the limits of Purakkady Grama Panchayat, is that he and his

wife are owners in possession of 25 cents of property situated in

Survey No. 34/1A1A of Purakkady Amsom, Sulthan Bathery Taluk,

Wayanad District, wherein a residential building is situated. According

to the petitioner, he was paying building tax for the said premises.

However, the second respondent claimed title over the property on the

basis of a settlement decree in O.S. No. 186/2004 of Kalpetta Munsiff's

Court. According to the petitioner, when he came to know that the

said decree was on the basis of a fraud played on the court, he filed

O.S. No. 96 of 2012 for cancellation of the said decree and an interim

injunction was granted in his favour.

3. Anyhow, the suit is pending consideration before a competent

civil court. It is submitted that while so, the second respondent,

Kunjali, S/o. Late Puthussery Moosa, Puthussery House, Vazhakkad

Amsom, Malappuram District, filed W.P.(C) No. 33961 of 2008 before

this Court stating that the land tax for his property is not accepted by

the concerned village office and praying for a direction to accept the

land tax. In the said writ petition, this Court, as per Ext. P2 judgment

dated 25.03.2015, directed the respondents therein to accept the tax

in respect of the property concerned. However, it was made clear that

acceptance of the tax will not stand detrimental to the rights and

interest of the other parties concerned, if at all any, and if any dispute

is pending consideration before any other forum.

4. The significant contention advanced by the petitioner in this

writ petition is that on the basis of the direction issued by this Court,

the Panchayat has unilaterally changed the ownership of the property

to the name of the second respondent and the petitioner was informed

of the same as per Ext. P3 post card. The basic contention advanced

by the petitioner is that Ext. P3 is violative of the principles of the

natural justice, since no opportunity was provided to the petitioner

before the change of ownership of building in question.

5. I have perused the pleadings and materials on record.

6. As deliberated above, from Ext. P3, it is discernible that the

Panchayat has changed the registry of building bearing Nos. MP

10/194, 193, 192 in favour of the second respondent Kunjali. It is

clear from Ext. P3 that it is only an information given by the signatory

of that letter to the petitioner about the change of ownership of the

building in question. Therefore, I find force in the contention advanced

by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The registry was changed

without providing appropriate opportunity to the petitioner and

therefore, the action of the Secretary of the Panchayat or the

Panchayat can only be said to be arbitrary and violative of the

principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be interfered

with, exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

7. Therefore, I set aside Ext. P3 and direct the Secretary of the

Grama Panchayat to reconsider the matter, after providing notice of

hearing to the petitioner and the second respondent or if

circumstances required, their legal heirs/legal representatives.

However, I make it clear that if under any circumstances, the subject

issue has attained finality, it shall not be reopened.

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is

disposed of.

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31034/2015

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1 EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 96/2012. EXT.P2 EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 33961/2008.

EXT.P3 EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE POST CARD ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT INTIMATING CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/True Copy/

PS To Judge.

rv