IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2011 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33788 of 2011(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PHILIP KURIAKOSE, S/O KURIAKOSE, AGED 80 YEARS THENAMMACKAL HOUSE, VELATHUSSERI PO, KOTTAYAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU SRI.SHINE MATHEWS(VADAKKEKARA) SRI.ARUN CHANDY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM 686002. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL, PALA 686575. 4. SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY, PALA 686575. 5. VILLAGE OFFICER, TEEKOY, KOTTAYAM DT 686580. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.33788/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.138 DATED 1.2.1978 OF SRO, POONJAR. EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DT 12.11.11. EXT.P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DT 27.10.09 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 24.8.11 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY F THE JDUGEMTN DT 26.6.97 IN PA to Judge NO.17889/1996 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.10.05 IN OP NO.10457/1998 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P7: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.8.11 IN WPCNO.5240/11 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 33788 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 16th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the owner of the land covered by Ext.P1 title deed. According to him, the property has been mutated in his name and tax also was being paid on that basis. However, now the 5th respondent has refused to accept tax alleging that his property is seen included in the list of excess land. Counsel submits that when similarly situated persons had approached this Court, the writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment and that the same course may be adopted in this case also. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. Ext.P7 is the judgment that is relied on. In that judgment, following the earlier judgment in OP No.17889/96, this Court passed the following order:- “2. Petitioners submits that earlier when tax in respect of petitioner's wife's property was refused to be accepted, O.P.17889/96 was filed WPC No.33788/11 :2 : and that the said OP was disposed by Ext.P11 judgment. In Ext.P11 judgment, this Court directed thus; “Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition as follows:- i) The third respondent, Survey Superintendent shall approach the Land Board concerned and obtain the plan concerning the excess land. This shall be done by the third respondent within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ii) On receipt of the plan, Survey Superintendent shall place the plan along with the objections of the petitioners before the Survey Adalath and the Survey Adalath shall give the petitioners an opportunity of being heard to substantiate their grievance. The Survey Adalath shall thereupon pass orders on the objections filed by the petitioners. This shall be done at any rate, within another three months.” 3. According to the learned counsel, based on the directions in Ext.P11, the whole process was completed and tax was accepted. In this writ petition also, he submits that since an identical grievance has been raised by the petitioner's wife in the aforesaid case, similar directions as in Ext.P11 judgment may be issued. 4. Therefore I dispose of the writ WPC No.33788/11 :3 : petition directing that the 3rd respondent shall comply with the aforesaid two directions contained in the judgment in O.P 17889/96 in so far as the petitioners' property also and on that basis Survey Adalath shall decide the matter on the request made by the petitioners. 4. The grievance being identical, this writ petition is also disposed of directing that the course of action directed in the aforesaid judgment will also be followed in the case of the petitioner also. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 4th respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp