Ponnuthai vs District Collector, Idukki
2024 Latest Caselaw 15691 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 15691 Ker
Judgement Date : 6 June, 2024

Kerala High Court

Ponnuthai vs District Collector, Idukki on 6 June, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
     THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 32466 OF 2017
PETITIONER/S:

          PONNUTHAI
          AGED 65 YEARS
          W/O.LATE THOMAS KARUPPAYYA NADAR, KOCHIKATTIL HOUSE,
          RANDAM MILE, PALLIVASAL, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

          BY ADV SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI
          IDUKKI - 685 602.

    2     REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
          DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

    3     TAHSILDAR
          TALUK OFFICE, DEVIKULAM,IDUKKI - 685 613.

    4     VILLAGE OFFICER
          PALLIVASAL VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM,IDUKKI - 685 613.

    5     T.K.RAJAN
          KOCHIKATTIL HOUSE, RANDAM MILE,PALLIVASAL, IDUKKI
          DISTRICT - 685 565.

          SRI. VENUGOPAL V., GOVT. PLEADER


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P (C) No.32466/2017                  -2-

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this court challenging Ext.P7 letter

issued by the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Devikulam regarding the acceptance of

basic land tax in respect of 45.90 Ares of property comprised in re-sy No.24/2

and 31 Ares of property comprised in re-sy No.24/5 in Block No.14 of the

Pallivasal Village of Devikulam Taluk. The brief facts of the case are that the

petitioner claims to be the wife of late Thomas Karuppayya Nadar. Late

Thomas Karuppayya Nadar was earlier married to one Daveedh Pushpam and

she was remitting basic land tax in respect of the aforesaid properties. The

aforesaid Daveedh Pushpam pre-deceased Thomas Karuppayya Nadar. After

the death of Thomas Karuppayya Nadar the petitioner was permitted to remit

basic land tax in respect of the the properties. That was later cancelled on the

basis of a complaint stated to have been filed by the 5 th respondent who is one

of the children of late Daveedh Pushpam in her matrimonial relationship with

late Thomas Karuppayya Nadar. The 5th respondent has however given Ext.P6

letter to the Tahsildar that he has raised no complaint in the matter of

remittance of tax by the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that in the light of Ext.P6 letter issued by the 5 th respondent there cannot be

any objection to the remittance of tax by the petitioner. It is submitted that on

the death of the late Daveedh Pushpam her husband namely late Thomas

Karuppayya Nadar became entitled to the property and as the second legally

wedded wife of late Thomas Karuppayya Nadar, the petitioner is entitled to

remit tax in respect of the properties. It is also submitted that the properties

in question were actually obtained by late Thomas Karuppayya Nadar in the

name of late Daveedh Pushpam.

3. The learned Government Pleader refers to Ext.P3 communication

issued by the Additional Tahsildar, Devikulam to the Village Officer,

Pallivasal also to the Ext.P7 communication issued by the Tahsildar,

Devikulam to contend that the tax was paid by the petitioner without the

conjunction of all the legal heirs of late Daveedh Pushpam the properties

could not be mutated in favour of the petitioner alone even if it were to be

assumed that she has acquired some interest in the property through late

Thomas Karuppayya Nadar. It is submitted that on production of necessary

documents a decision on mutating the properties will be taken in accordance

with the law.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that it is for the petitioner to

produce necessary documents before the competent authorities and seek

mutation in her name if she is able to show that she became entitled to the

properties with the conjunction of all the legal heirs of late Daveedh

Pushpam. In the absence of such documents it was proper on the part of the

authorities in refusing to accept tax from the petitioner. In other words since

the properties could have been mutated in the name of the petitioner only

with the conjunction of all the legal heirs of late Daveedh Pushpam.

Reserving the liberty of the petitioner to approach the authorities with

necessary documents proving her right to have the property mutated in her

name, this writ petition will stand dismissed. It is also made clear that it will

be open to the petitioner to approach the civil court for declaration of her

rights if necessary.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

AMG

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32466/2017

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THOMAS KARUPPAYYA NADAR.

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 14.06.2007.

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01.10.2010.

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.03.2015.

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 27.06.2016 VIDE REFERENCE NO.13/16 TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REQUEST PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 26.08.2016 ALONG WITH THE REQUEST OF 5TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TAHSILDAR TO THE PETITIONER.