Poozhithara Beevi vs The District Collector
2022 Latest Caselaw 807 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
         MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 27TH POUSHA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 27381 OF 2021


PETITIONER:

              POOZHITHARA BEEVI, AGED 60 YEARS
              W/O NAKKUNNATH KUNHAMMED @ BAVA,
              PERMANNA AMSOM, DESOM, CHETTIYAM KINAR,
              P.O.KLARI, TIRUR TALUK,
              MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-671 501

              BY ADVS.
              JAMSHEED HAFIZ
              K.K.NESNA


RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM,
              MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505

     2        THE THAHASILDAR TIRURANGADI TALUK,
              TIRURANGADI (PO) PIN-676 306,
              MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

     3        VILLAGE OFFICER, EDARIKOD P.O.
              MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 501


              SMT.M.ANIMA - G.P.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 27381/21
                                       2



                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that she is in exclusive ownership and

possession of the property involved in this case and that she

obtained title to it through a valid Sale Deed. She says that this is

indubitable because she was allowed to remit Land Tax on it till

27.09.2017, as is evident from Ext.P1 Tax Receipt; but that when

she attempted to do so in the subsequent years, the 3rd

respondent - Village Officer refused permission saying that due to

digitilisation of the Revenue Records, she cannot be allowed to

remit the said Tax until information is uploaded on the internet

site.

2. The petitioner says that, thereafter, nothing was done,

constraining her to prefer Ext.P2 application, but that now she has

been informed by the Village Officer through Ext.P4 that her

properties are recorded as being adjoining 'purambokku' lands and

therefore, that it will not be possible for her to remit Land Tax WPC 27381/21

until enquiry with respect to its attributes are completed through a

proper survey. She says that Ext.P4 is illegal since there is no

competence for the Village Officer to conduct an enquiry on to the

attributes of the property and that this can be done only by the

competent Tahsildar or the Taluk Surveyor, as per law. She,

therefore, prays that Ext.P4 be set aside and the Village Officer be

directed to allow her to remit Land Tax for the years 2018-19 and

thereafter.

3. In response to the afore submissions made on behalf of

the petitioner by her learned counsel - Sri.Jamsheed Hafiz,

learned Government Pleader - Smt.M.Anima, submitted that, the

Village Officer has been incapacitated from allowing the petitioner

to remit Land Tax because the digitilised Revenue Records now

show her property to be 'Puramboku'. However, to a pointed

question from this Court, the learned Government Pleader was

unable to inform how this was done, particularly when the

petitioner had been allowed to remit Land Tax on it till 2017. WPC 27381/21

4. I am, therefore, of the firm view that merely because

an enquiry into the attributes of the petitioner's property is

continuing or the entries in the Revenue Records are in the

process of being digitalised, it would not be justified for the

official respondents to deny liberty to her to remit Land Tax,

because it has been well settled that such payment is a fiscal

measure and not an affirmation of ownership.

In the afore circumstances, I order this Writ Petition and set

aside Ext.P4; with a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent

- Village Officer, to allow the petitioner to remit Land Tax on the

property in question and to issue appropriate Tax Receipt with an

endorsement that an enquiry with respect to the attributes of the

property are still going on.

The afore exercise shall be done by the Village Officer within

a period of one week from the date on which necessary amounts

for the tax is remitted by the petitioner.

Needless to say, enquiry with respect to the property in WPC 27381/21

question, as also its entries in the Revenue Records, shall be

completed by the competent Authority, after affording an

opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and after examining

her documents, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than

eight months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Should the enquiry be not completed within the afore time

frame and the resultant order not communicated to the petitioner,

then the Village Officer will be obligated to remove the afore

ordered endorsement from the Tax Receipt and issue a fresh one,

so as to enable her to use the property without impediment in

future.

Sd/-

RR                                        DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                                    JUDGE
 WPC 27381/21


                APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27381/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1          A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
                    ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
                    27.9.2017
Exhibit P2          A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
                    BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
                    RESPONDENT DATED 24.9.2021 WITH
                    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Exhibit P3          A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
                    BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
                    RESPONDENT DATED 24.9.2021 WITH
                    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Exhibit P4          A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
                    3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.10.2021