Kerala High Court
P.K.Nalinakshan vs State Of Kerala on 2 June, 1965
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2014/2ND SRAVANA, 1936
WP(C).No. 24549 of 2011 (P)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
P.K.NALINAKSHAN,
S/O.LATE KRISHNAN,'NALANDA',
MANJOOR P.O.,
KOTTAYAM,
PIN-686503
BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA.
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT. REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVT.SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM-695001.
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
PEERMADE-686506.
3. THE VIGILANCE OFFICER,
PEERMADE-686506.
BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUSHEELA BHATT.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rvs/
WP(C).No. 24549 of 2011 (P)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF SKETCH AND MAHAZAR REPORT DATED 2.6.1965 PREPARED BY
THE REVENUE INSPECTOR IN L.A.578/1965.
EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF PATTA DATED 20.1.1970 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, PEERMADE.
EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 14.5.1970 BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PEERMADE.
EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THANDPER REGISTER OF PEERMADE TALUK.
EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR LOAN TO K.48.NO.CO-OPERATIVE BANK
AND POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED DATED 14.5.1970 BY VILLAGE
OFFICER, PEERMADE
EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF THANDAPER REGISTER OF PEERMADE TALUK.
EXT.P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 10.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE KOTTAYAM
CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK.
EXT.P8:- TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 16.2.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P9:- TRUE COPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 1.2.2011 ISSUED BY
S.R.O.PEERMADE.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :
EXT. R2(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24/01/2012 REFERRED TO IN
PARAGRAPH 6 OF THE STATEMENT DATED 16/02/2012.
EXT. R2(B):- TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED IN LA 578/1965.
EXT. R2(C):- TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED IN LA 594/1965.
EXT. R2(D):- TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT EXECUTED BY SRI.K.S.KUTTAPPAN IN
FAVOUR OF SRI.JOSE, MANNIL HOUSE, RANNI.
EXT. R2(E):- TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 16/05/2002.
EXT. R2(F):- TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 13/12/2004.
EXT. R2(G):- TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 19/11/2004.
EXT.R2(H):- TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF SARAMMA
JOSE, W/O.SRI. JOSE.
EXT.R2(I):- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02/02/2012 FROM THE LAND
REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
/true copy/
P.A.TO JUDGE
rvs/
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
WP(C).No.24549 of 2011-P.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 24th day of July, 2014.
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed alleging inaction on the part of the respondents to accept basic tax in respect of the petitioner's property based on Ext.P2 patta. Petitioner would submit that he is entitled to pay the basic tax on the basis of Ext.P2 .
2. Detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the second respondent. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that petitioner is not in possession of the said property. It is also stated that the petitioner is not occupation of the said property and the same is now under the possession and enjoyment of somebody else. I am of the view an enquiry in this matter is required to find out whether anybody other than the petitioner is in possession of the said property. If identity of the property is not verifiable based on Ext.P2 patta, assistance of other survey officials can be sought to WP(C).No.24549/2011-P. 2 identify the property under Ext.P2 patta at the expenses of the petitioner . There is no dispute regarding the validity of Ext.P2 patta. But necessarily when a patta is issued it is a bounden duty of the authorities to identify the property as per Ext.P2 patta. Issuance of patta is not an empty formality in respect of possession of a property. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the second respondent to enquire into this matter after making necessary inspection in the light of Ext.P2 patta and pass appropriate orders for accepting basic tax from the petitioner. If somebody else other than the petitioner is in possession of the property covered by the patta, necessarily before passing final orders that person shall also be heard. This shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, (Judge) Kvs/-
// true copy //