W.P.(C) Nos. 37698 & 37655 of 2023, High Court of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **TUESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 24TH MAGHA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 37655 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER/S:** V.M.VAMANAN NAMBOODIRI AGED 55 YEARS S/O V.M.HARIJAYANTHAN NAMBOODIRI, AMRITA JYOTI, P.O.PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR, PIN - 670004 BY ADV ANJALI MENON ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE RD, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR, PIN - 670002 2 THE TAHASILDAR COURT RD, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR, PIN - 670141 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER CHEMANTHOTTY RD, CHUZHALI, KANNUR, PIN - 670631 4 THE TALUK LAND BOARD TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR,REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 670141 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** GP - DEEPA V THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).37698/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). Nos.37698 & 37655 of 2023 : 2 : ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **TUESDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 24TH MAGHA, 1945** **WP(C) NO. 37698 OF 2023** **PETITIONER:** K USHA AGED 52 YEARS D/O K KESHAVAN NAMBOODIRI, AMRITA JYOTI, P.O.PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR, PIN - 670004 BY ADV ANJALI MENON ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE RD, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR, PIN - 670002 2 THE TAHASILDAR, COURT RD, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR-X, PIN - 670141 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHEMANTHOTTY RD, CHUZHALI, KANNUR, PIN - 670631 4 THE TALUK LAND BOARD TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR - REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 670141 **OTHER PRESENT:** GP - DEEPA V. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.02.2024, ALONG WITH WP(C).37655/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). Nos.37698 & 37655 of 2023 : 3 : ## **VIJU ABRAHAM, J.** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ## **W.P.(C) Nos. 37698 & 37655 of 2023** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13[th] day of February, 2024 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner in W. P.(C) No.37655 of 2023 has approached this Court challenging Ext.P8 order, and for a direction to the 3[rd] respondent to accept land tax with respect to the entire property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed from the petitioner, whereas the petitioner in W. P.(C) No.37698 of 2023 has approached this Court challenging Ext.P8 order and for a direction to the 3[rd] respondent to accept land tax in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed. 2. Since the issues raised in both the writ petitions are similar, they are disposed of by a common judgment. In W. P.(C) No. 37698 of 2023 the petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of a parcel of land having an extent of 81 Ares comprised in Re-survey No. 341/1 of Chuzhali Village in Taliparamba Taluk obtained as per Ext.P1 sale deed. Ext.P2 is the prior deed in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1. The petitioner submits that prior to the sale of the property to the petitioner, land tax was received in respect of the property as is W.P.(C). Nos.37698 & 37655 of 2023 : 4 : evident from Ext.P3. The respondents refused to accept land tax from the petitioner. Thereupon the petitioner approached the 1[st] respondent and the 1[st] respondent by Ext.P4 issued a direction to accept land tax with respect to the property which is not involved in the excess land and ordered enquiry regarding the remaining land. From then, the petitioner has been remitting land tax for an extent of 16.43 Ares, based on Ext.P4, as is evident from Exts.P5 and P6. Thereafter Ext.P8 order was issued by the 1[st] respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for accepting land tax. 3. Similarly, in W. P.(C) No.37655 of 2023, by Ext.P8 order, the request made by the petitioner therein for accepting land tax was also rejected saying that proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act is to be initiated in respect of the said property. 4. The petitioner in both the cases relying on the judgment in _**Rajkumar v. Tahsildar [2020 (3) KLT 403]**_ submits that the issue now raised by the petitioner is covered in their favour. Paragraph 11 and 12 of the said judgment reads as follows: _“11. A perusal of Section 5 of The Act, along with the definition clause of the term 'landholder' will reveal that a person in whose name a land is registered, has a bounden duty to pay the tax due under the provisions of The Act. The terms 'charged and levied' employed in section 5 of The Act, clearly conveys that there is a_ : 5 : W.P.(C). Nos.37698 & 37655 of 2023 _corresponding duty to collect the tax due on a property. Mode of collecting the tax due upon a property, when the landholder fails to pay, is by recourse to revenue recovery proceedings as provided under section 5(3) of The Act. The provisions of The Act clearly convey the intention of the legislature that if a land remains registered under the name of a person, he is bound to pay the same. When the landholder offers to pay the basic tax due on a land, the Officer entrusted with the duty to collect the same has no authority to refuse it. Refusal to accept tax by the revenue officials on the premise of some pending enquiry or some dispute as to the title which has not even been raised before any authority competent to decide such a dispute, is according to me an abdication of the duty. Such an action, cannot, under any circumstances be tolerated. Every owner of a property, as long as the property remains under his/ her ownership is entitled to pay tax and to exercise all rights of ownership._ _12. In this context, it is pertinent to note that no proceedings of any nature have been initiated by any officer questioning the validity of Patta issued to the predecessor in title of the petitioners. I am fortified in my findings on account of Ext.P9 also, which is the final report, and which was read out to me in extenso. The said final report also goes to show that even the allegations against the Patta or its issuance have been, after investigation found to be a mistake of fact. Though the evidentiary value of Ext.P9 may not have strict bearing as and when a dispute is raised, for the_ W.P.(C). Nos.37698 & 37655 of 2023 : 6 : _present, the same certainly justifies the claim of the petitioners even as regards the veracity of the Pattas issued.”_ The petitioner also relies on the judgment of this Court in _**Kai Resorts Pvt. Ltd. v. District Collector, Kottayam [2022 (7) KHC 503]**_ wherein the authorities declined to effect mutation on the ground that ceiling proceedings are pending on the said property and this Court repelled the said contention and directed to effect mutation under the Transfer of Registry Rules, with a rider that the transfer of registry will not affect any proceedings initiated under the Kerala Land Reforms Act regarding the excess lands. 5. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submits that the reason for non-acceptance of the tax is the initiation of proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, to which the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date, no such proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners or their predecessors. Taking into consideration the declaration of law in _**Rajkumar**_ 's case and _**Kai Resorts Pvt. Ltd.'**_ s case cited (Supra) _**,**_ I am of the view that the respondents are bound to receive tax in W.P.(C). Nos.37698 & 37655 of 2023 : 7 : respect of the property covered by Ext. P1. Therefore, the above writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the 3[rd] respondent to accept tax in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1sale deed from the petitioner in these writ petitions. It is made clear that the acceptance of tax will not in any way affect any proceedings initiated under the Kerala Land Reforms Act regarding excess land. Sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE** sm/ W.P.(C). Nos.37698 & 37655 of 2023 : 8 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37698/2023** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 5.2.2015 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO. 339/2015 OF SREEKANDAPURAM SRO. Exhibit -P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1404/2008 OF SRO SREEKANDAPURAM Exhibit -P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO L25381 DATED 13.11.2014 Exhibit -P4 LAND. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1 ST RESPONDENT DCKNR/5397/2016-A3 DATED 2.7.2016 Exhibit -P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO. L73260 DATED 20.7.2016 Exhibit -P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST TAX RECEIPT NO.KL13012209448/2023 DATED 26.10.2023 Exhibit-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIELD REGISTER UNDER FORM 50 OBTAINED UNDER RTI Exhibit-P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DCKNR/5397/2016-A3(B4) OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.7.2023 Exhibit-P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 1.8.2023 Exhibit-P10 A TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR-II DATED 16-09-2023 W.P.(C). Nos.37698 & 37655 of 2023 : 9 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37655/2023** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |Exhibit-P1|TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 4.2.2015| ||REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO. 340/2015 OF| ||SREEKANDAPURAM SRO| |Exhibit-P2|A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.| ||1404/2008 OF SRO SREEKANDAPURAM| |Exhibit-P3|A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO L25381| ||DATED 1.3.2014| |Exhibit-P4|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST| ||RESPONDENT DCKNR/5397/2016-A3 DATED| ||2.7.2016| |Exhibit-P5|A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO. L73260| ||DATED 20.7.2016| |Exhibit-P6|A TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST TAX RECEIPT| ||NO.KL13012209447/2023 DATED 26.10.2023| |Exhibit-P7|A TRUE COPY OF THE FIELD REGISTER UNDER| ||FORM 50 OBTAINED UNDER RTI| |Exhibit-P8|A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.| ||DCKNR/5397/2016-A3(B4) OF THE 1ST| ||RESPONDENT DATED 10.7.2023| |Exhibit-P9|A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED| ||BY THE PETITIONER DATED 1.8.2023| |Exhibit-P10|A TRUE COPY OF REPORT|