Kerala High Court
Nirar vs Tahsildar on 27 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 9602 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
K.K MUHAMMED ABDUL KHADER
AGED 75 YEARS
K.K.MUHAMMED ABDUL KHADER S/O. ABDUL KHADER HAJI,
KUTTYALIKKADAVATH HOUSE, THANUR P.O., TIRUR TALUK
MALAPPURAM-676302., PIN - 676302
BY ADVS.
S.SREEDEV
ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
RONY JOSE
LEO LUKOSE
KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY
DERICK MATHAI SAJI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 TAHSILDAR
TIRUR TALUK OFFICE MINI CIVIL STATION, TIRUR P.O,
MALAPPURAM., PIN - 676101
2 VILLAGE OFFICER
TANUR VILLAGE OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION , TANUR P.O
MALAPPURAM DIST., PIN - 676302
SMT. DEEPA V. (GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.06.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).13798/2023, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.9602/2023 & Conn.case 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 13798 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:
NIRAR
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. KUNJIMUHAMMED HAJI, ETTAKKUNJINTEPURAKKAL
HOUSE, THANUR P.O., TIRUR TALUK MALAPPURAM, PIN -
676302
BY ADVS.
ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
S.SREEDEV
RONY JOSE
LEO LUKOSE
KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY
DERICK MATHAI SAJI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 TAHSILDAR
TIRUR TALUK OFFICE MINI CIVIL STATION TIRUR P.O
MALAPPURAM DIST, PIN - 676101
2 VILLAGE OFFICER
TANUR VILLAGE OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, TANUR P.O
MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676302
DEEPA V. (GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.06.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).9602/2023, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.9602/2023 & Conn.case 3
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.9602/2023, 13798/2023]
These cases have been filed seeking a direction to the 2 nd
respondent to accept basic land tax from the petitioners. The petitioner
in W.P.(C)No.9602/2023 claims to be in ownership and possession of
15.79 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.354/1C of Tanur Village,
Tirur Taluk, which was obtained by him under Schedule G of Partition
Deed No.969 of 1972 of SRO, Tanur. The petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.13798/2023 claims to be in ownership and possession of 3.34
Ares of land comprised in Survey No.354/IC of Tanur Village, which
was obtained in terms of a Settlement Deed registered as Settlement
Deed No.2371 of 2010 of Tanur SRO.
2. According to the petitioners, the mutation in respect of both
the properties had been completed and they were paying land tax in
their own names. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.9602/2023 claims to
have remitted land tax till the year 2016 while the petitioner in W.P.
(C)No.13798/2023 claims to have remitted tax till the year 2013. It is
submitted that, thereafter, when the petitioners approached the 2 nd
respondent seeking to remit land tax, the same has not been accepted
on the vague premise that there are certain proceedings pending in
respect of the properties in question.
3. The learned Government Pleader on instructions would
submit that the properties in question were part of the properties let
out by the Government to the erstwhile Malabar District Board. It is
submitted that certain proceedings are proposed in respect of the
property originally allotted to the erstwhile Malabar District Board.
However, it is not disputed that going by the judgments of this Court in
Laila v. Village Officer, Thrikkovilvattom Village Office and
others; 2019 (4) KHC 799 and Sreevidya Sasidharan and
others v. State of Kerala and others; 2019 KHC 7, the fact that
such proceedings are in contemplation cannot be a ground to deny the
acceptance of land tax from the petitioners. The learned Government
Pleader submits that acceptance of land tax from the petitioners should
not in any manner prejudice the right of the Government to take action,
if warranted under the law.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Government Pleader and having perused the judgments of this
Court in Laila (supra) and in Sreevidya Sasidharan (supra), I
am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed and the 2 nd
W.P.(C)No.9602/2023 & Conn.case 5
respondent in both the cases is directed to accept land tax from the
respective petitioners making it clear that the acceptance of land tax
will not in any manner prejudice any action that may be taken by the
Government in respect of the properties in question, in accordance with
the law.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
acd
W.P.(C)No.9602/2023 & Conn.case 6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13798/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO
2371 OF 2010 OF TANUR SRO IN FAVOUR OF
THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
24.04.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2(a) A TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
11.06.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
02.03.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE HE 2ND RESPONDENT.
W.P.(C)No.9602/2023 & Conn.case 7
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9602/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
22.01.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT .
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
02.02.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE HE 2ND RESPONDENT.
