IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2010 / 27TH SRAVANA 1932 OP.No. 17791 of 2002(R) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THAROL ABHILASH, S/O.KAMALAMMA, VELLAPPALAM VEETIL, AVIDANALLOOR AMSOM, PONATH DESOM, QUILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN SMT.C.S.RAJANI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TAHSILDAR, QUILANDY TALUK, MINI CIVIL STATION, QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, KANTHALAD VILLAGE, P.O.THALAYAD, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF - FOR R1 & R2 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 17791/2002. --------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DT. 9-2-1995. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF SKETCH OF THE LAND. EXT.P3 DOCUMENT DT. 3-12-1943. EXT.P4 PRELIMINARY DECREE IN O.S.221/95 OF SUB COURT, QUILANDY. EXT.P5 FINAL DECREE IN I.A.NO. 1381/96 IN O.S.NO. 221/95 DT. 15-6-1998. EXT.P6 REPORT IN E.P.NO. 36/1999. EXT.P7 PETITION DT. 1-1-1996. EXT.P8 REPORT DT. 18-12-1996. EXT.P9 REPORT DT. 26-3-1997. EXT.P10 REPORT DT. 27-10-1997. EXT.P11 OBJECTIONO FILED IN DECEMBER, 1997. EXT.P12 ORDER DT. 12-10-1998. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 17791 of 2002 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 18th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner and 7 others jointly purchased properties involved in this original petition by Ext. P 1 sale deed. Subsequently, one of the co-owners filed O.A.No. 221/95 before the Sub Court, Quilandy for partition. That suit was decreed and the petitioner and two other sharers were together allotted plot B in the plan prepared by the Sub Court, which is produced as Ext. P2 in this original petition. Pursuant thereto, that property was delivered to the petitioner and the other two co-owners and they are in possession of the same ever since. While that suit was pending, the co-owners of the property filed Ext. P7 petition before the 1st respondent requesting him to receive land tax in respect of the property. The petitioner and others were called for a hearing in which the petitioner and others participated. Thereafter, the Village Officer, Kanthalad Village, the 2nd respondent herein, submitted Ext. P8 report in the matter, which, according to the petitioner, contained totally baseless statements. Therefore, the petitioner objected to the report of the Village Officer. Thereupon, the matter was referred to the Revenue Inspector, Balusserry, who filed a report which goes to prove the contentions of the petitioner and others, which is Ext. P9 herein. The 1st respondent called for another report from the Deputy Talsildar (Housing), Quilandy, pursuant to which Ext. P10 report was filed, which also, according to the petitioner, contained false statements. Therefore, objections to that report, Ext. P11, was filed. Thereafter, nothing was heard from the 1st respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner went to the Village Office for remitting land tax during the first week of June, 2002, when the Village Officer refused to accept tax on the ground that Ext. P7 petition submitted by the petitioner and others were rejected by order dated 12-10-1998. The Village Officer furnished O.P. . No. 17791/2002. -: 2 :- the petitioner with a copy of that order, which is produced as Ext. P12. The petitioner challenges Ext. P12 order in this original petition. 2. According to the petitioner, the finding in Ext. P12 that the land is Government land is totally baseless and not supported by any material on record. He submits that the property is surrounded by other private holdings and at no point of time any proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner and others on the ground that the property is Government land. The petitioner therefore submits that Ext. P 12 is totally illegal and unsustainable. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents in this original petition. But the learned Government Pleader argues in support of Ext. P12. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. By an interim order dated 1-7-2002, the respondents were directed to receive tax in respect of the petitioner's property making it clear that no right shall accrue to the petitioner on account of acceptance of such tax. There are no documents on record to show that at any time any proceedings have been initiated under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act in respect of the property in question. That being so, I am not satisfied that Ext. P12 is sustainable. Accordingly, Ext. P12 is quashed. The respondents are directed to continue to accept basic tax from the petitioner. However, if the respondents have a case that this land is Government land, it would be open to the respondents to initiate appropriate proceedings under O.P. . No. 17791/2002. -: 3 :- the Kerala Land Conservancy Act with notice to the petitioner and opportunity of being heard and opportunity to adduce evidence. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/