Kerala High Court
Rajamma vs The District Survey Superintendent, ... on 28 May, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 12919 OF 2016
PETITIONERS:
RAJAMMA
KRISHNA GAYATHRI, CMC 28/588, CHERTHALA, PIN - 688 524
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.G.PAVITHRAN
SRI.V.N.SUBHANGAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, ALAPPUZHA
3RD FLOOR, ALAPPUZHA CIVIL LINES, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001
2 THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA - 688 524
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
THANEERMUKKAM VADAKKU VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK - 688 524
BY ADV.
SRI. RIYAL DEVASSY, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.12919 OF 2016
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.12919 of 2016
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following
prayers:
"i. Call for the records leading to Exhibit P1 to P5
and peruse them;
ii.. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order directing the
respondents to consider and pass orders on Exhibit
P4 and P5 within a time specified by this Hon'ble
Court;
iii. Direct the 3rd respondent to accept the basic tax
in respect of the 7 cents of property left with the
petitioner out of the 29 cents obtained by her under
Sale Deed No. 4113/1981 comprised in Survey No.
251/15 Thanneermukkam Vadakku Village of
WP(C) NO.12919 OF 2016
Cherthala Taluk;
iv. Award costs of the petitioner in these
proceedings;
v. Issue such other writ, direction or order deemed
just and proper in the circumstances of the case;"
SIC
2. The main prayer in this writ petition is to
consider and pass orders in Exts.P4 and P5, within a
time frame. A counter affidavit is filed by the second
respondent. Relevant portion of the same is extracted
hereunder:
"3. The Re-survey was implemented in the
year 1993 in Thanneermukkom North Village.
The petitioner had 9.20 Ares (22.72 cents) of land
comprised in Re.Sy Nos. 292/4 (old Sy. No.
251/15) in her Thandaper Account No. 2817 of
Thanneermukkom North Village. She had been
paying basic tax for it up to the financial year
1995-96. Out of this she had sold 5.67 Ares (14
cents) to one Prakasan and his wife Udaya
WP(C) NO.12919 OF 2016
Varma under sale deed No. 3270/95 and 3.24
Ares (8 cents) to Asokan under sale deed No.
3271/95. As per PV file No. 454/97 dated
22.01.97 and 7370/96 dated 28.11.96, the
above 5.67 Ares and 3.24 Ares were transferred
to Thandaper Account No. 4989 and 4659
respectively of Thanneermukkom North Village.
As per Village records only 0.29 Ares is left in her
Thandaper Account No. 2817, but on field
inspection, it is clear that the petitioner is not in
possession of even 0.29 Ares, since this 0.29
Ares is a 'thodu".
4. As stated above, as per the sale deed
No. 3270/95, the petitioner sold 14 cents to Sri.
Prakasan and his wife and another 8 cents to Sri.
Asokan under sale deed No. 3271/95. Thus, out
of the 22 cents the petitioner has remains only for
0.29 Ares and which is not in her possession.
From this it is clear that the petitioner was in
actual possession of 9.20 Ares only. So the
petitioner has no right even to submit a complaint
which is shown as Ext. P4. Hence the petitioner
was not permitted to remit tax, as prayed for.
5. It is submitted that in Ext. P2 & P3 the
petitioner clearly stated that, she is selling the
property from an extent of 09.20 Ares which is
assigned to her after the resurvey records
implemented in the year 1993. From this it is
WP(C) NO.12919 OF 2016
clear that the petitioner was in actual possession
of 9.20 Ares only.
6. Out of the 9.20 Ares, for which the
petitioner had been paying basic tax after
resurvey, she has sold 8.91 Ares to one Prakasan
and his wife Udaya Varma and Asokan. Even
0.29 Ares left in her Thandaper Account No. 2817
for which she is not in possession, she has no
right to pay basic tax for the land. For the above
reason the 3rd respondent refused to receive the
tax for the 7 cents in Ext. P4 as it is not in her
possession."
3. Even though, the second respondent
submitted the facts in detail in this counter affidavit, it
is not mentioned whether Exts.P4 and P5 is
considered and pass orders. Therefore, if Exts.P4 and
P5 is received and pending as on today, there can be a
direction to consider the same and pass appropriate
orders in it. I make it clear that, I have not considered
the matter on merit and the authority concerned is
WP(C) NO.12919 OF 2016
free to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with
law.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with
the following directions;
1. The second respondent is directed to
consider and pass appropriate orders in
Exts.P4 and P5, after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, if
the same is received and pending as on
today, as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate, within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
2. The petitioner will produce a certified copy
of the judgment along with a copy of the
WP(C) NO.12919 OF 2016
writ petition, with exhibits, before the
second respondent for compliance.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
nvj JUDGE
WP(C) NO.12919 OF 2016
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12919/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
4113/1981 DATED 19.06.1981
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
3270/95 DATED 11.12.1975
P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
3271/95 DATED 11.12.1995
P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04.02.2014
P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
