WP(C) 36607 of 2015: Tahsildar Chirayanke EZH, Attingal (Headquarters) & Village Officer, Sarkara Village, Chirayankezh v. Mohammed UMMER M TC 27/1997 & The Kerala Lokayukta represented by its Registrar; Naseema M; Mohammed Umer Naseer; Sofiya M; Mohammed Baji

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.J.DESAI`** ## **`&`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 22ND POUSHA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 36607 OF 2015`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** - `1 TAHSILDAR CHIRAYANKEEZH, ATTINGAL (HEAD QUARTERS)` - `2 VILLAGE OFFICER SARKARA VILLAGE, CHIRAYANKEEZH` ``` BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER V.TEKCHAND ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 MOHAMMED UMMER M T.C. 27/1997, CHIRAKULAM, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035.` - `2 THE KERALA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE LOK AYUKTA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 033.` - `3 NASEEMA M (AGE 71), D/O LATE MOHAMMED UMMER M, TC 11/168 HOUSE NO 117,AL NAS, KANAKA NAGAR, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANATHAPURAM` - `4 MOHAMMED UMMER NASEER (AGE 69), S/O LATE MOHAMMED UMMER M, TC 27/1997, CHIRAKULAM ROAD, THIRUVANNATHAPURAM` - `5 SOFIYA M (AGE 66), D/0 LATE MOHAMMED UMMER M, TC 11/2167-1, HOUSE NO . A 106, KANAKA NAGAR, NANATHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM` - `6 MOHAMMED BAJI (AGE 59), S/O LATE MOHAMMED UMMER M, TC 4/574-1, SRIVILAS LANE, KAUDIAR, THIRUVANAHTAPURAM` ``` ADDL. R3 TO R6 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 12.1.24 IN I.A.1/23 OF WP(C) 36607/15. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SMT.V.A.HARITHA P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH FOR R1, R4, R5 & R6 ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR SRI.K.NANDAKUMAR SMT.UMA ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 36607 OF 2015`** ``` -2- ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 36607 OF 2015 ``` ``` -3- ``` ## **JUDGMENT** ## **A.J.DESAI, CJ.** By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged two orders dated 10.06.2023 and 24.02.2015 respectively, passed in Complaint No.1371/2012, by which, the Upa Lok Ayukta, State of Kerala, after issuing certain directions initially, further directed to comply with the earlier order. Short facts arising out of the writ petition are as under: 2. The 1[st] respondent lodged a compliant with the Lok Ayukta being Complaint No.1371/2012, requesting the Lok Ayukta to pass appropriate orders directing the present petitioners to accept tax with regard to 24 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.1999/14 in Sarkara village. It was the case of the complainant that his mother Smt. Jabiriathu Beevi was having a total of 67 cents. She died in 1997 and subsequent to her demise, the complainant became the owner of the property in question. It was the case of the complainant that tax was being paid for the entire property. ## **`WP(C) NO. 36607 OF 2015`** However, subsequent to the death of his mother, the respondent authority did not accept the tax for portion of the land, i.e., for 24 cents and hence, the complaint was filed. 3. The Lok Ayukta, after having heard the respective parties, passed an order dated 10.06.2013, directing the present petitioners to accept tax in respect of the 24 cents of land. Since the direction was not complied with, the respondent approached the Upa Lok Ayukta for non compliance of the order. A report was submitted by the petitioners herein. As per the report, the disputed land of 24 cents is ‘Thodu Puramboke’ and therefore, the same belongs to the State authority. The Upa Lok Ayukta did not accept the said report and further directed the petitioners herein to comply with the order. Hence this writ petition. 4. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners would submit that, under Section 12 of the Kerala Lok Ayukata Act, the Lok Ayukata has no authority or power to issue such direction, but it can only recommend the State authorities to do the needful. In support of the submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in _**Additional Tahsildar v. Urmila G. [2023 (7)**_ ## **`WP(C) NO. 36607 OF 2015`** ``` -5- ``` _**KHC 497]**_ Apart from this, he would submit that the State authorities have submitted a detailed report before the Upa Lok Ayuka, which has been discussed in detail in paragraph No.6 of the order dated 24.02.2015. Therefore, the Upa Lok Ayukata ought not have directed the State authorities to comply with the order. He would further submit that the orders impugned in this petition be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the original complainant has taken us through the order dated 10.06.2013 of the Upa Lok Ayukta. He would submit that, it was accepted by the State authorities that there is no clear boundary to the property and it cannot be ascertained whether the property is in Azhoor village or Sarkara Village. He would submit that tax was paid for the entire land including the 24 cents. Therefore, the Upa Lok Ayukta ordered appropriately and had committed no error in passing the second order dated 24.02.2015. 6. We heard the learned Advocates appearing for respective parties. We have perused the orders dated 10.06.2013 and 24.02.2015 passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta. From the orders it ``` WP(C) NO. 36607 OF 2015 ``` appears that the Tahsildar was not aware about the correctness of the claim put forward by the claimant as well as the location of the property in question. The records which has been discussed in the 2[nd] order dated 24.02.2015 reveals that Re.Survey was conducted by the Tahsildar and has come to the conclusion that the property is ‘Thodu Puramboke’. 7. In our considered opinion, the Upa Lok Ayukata ought not have directed the State authorities to receive tax for 24 cents by exercising the power under Section 12 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act. The judgment relied upon by the petitioners in _**Additional Tahsildar**_ (supra) is applicable in the present case. Hence, we quash and set aside the orders impugned. However, instead of remanding the matter for further orders, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we pass the following order: 8. The claimant, who is the owner of the property, may approach the District Collector with regard to his claim for remitting land tax on the strength of his title and interest over the property in question, with the relevant documents. The District Collector may decide the issue about the status of the property after examining all ## **`WP(C) NO. 36607 OF 2015`** ``` -7- ``` the records and affording an opportunity of hearing to the original complainant. The petition is allowed accordingly. ``` Sd/- ``` ``` A.J.DESAI CHIEF JUSTICE ``` ``` Sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE ``` uu ``` WP(C) NO. 36607 OF 2015 ``` ``` -8- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36607/2015`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` P1-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/06/2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN COMPLAINT NO. 1371/2012. ``` ``` P2-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/02/2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN COMPLAINT NO. 1371/2012. ``` ``` P3-TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE IST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ``` ``` P4-TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE IST PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ``` ``` P5-TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT IN COMPLAINT NO. 1371/2012. ``` ``` P6-TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYANKEEZHU. ```