IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 OP.No. 8461 of 2001(G) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.A. KUTTAYYA, MANAGING DIRECTOR, J.B.J. PLANTATION PVT. LIMITED, KALLAMALA POST, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. MR.V.G.ARUN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY), MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, RE-SURVEY, PALAKKAD. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER (TAXES) MR. K.P. PRADEEP. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 8461 of 2001 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 29th September, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the Managing Director of the Company by name J.B.J. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. The Company purchased large extent of land from another Company. Resurvey of the properties in the hands of the petitioner has been initiated. But, According to the petitioner, it has not been completed. While so, on the ground that the petitioner is not in possession of the extent claimed by him, and he has, on the basis of exaggerated figures of the extent of land, obtained loan from a Bank, criminal proceedings were initiated. At the same time, revenue recovery proceedings have been initiated by Ext. P4 for recovery of plantation tax allegedly due from the petitioner in respect of the whole extent of the land. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “(i) to call for the records leading to Ext. P4 and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order; (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to order resurvey over the entire extent of land in sy. no. 1841/Pt of Kallamala village, Mannarkkad of Palakkad District based on Exts. P1 and P2 representations made by the petitioner.” 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. It is not disputed before me that resurvey of the properties has not been completed. The contention of the Government Pleader is that Ext. P4 revenue recovery proceedings have been issued based on an assessment made on the vendor-Company. It is also admitted before me that the assessment has to be revised on the basis of resurvey, which has not yet been completed. In view of the same, I do not think that proceedings pursuant to O.P.No.8461/2001 -: 2 :- Ext. P4 can be continued. Accordingly, Ext. P4 is quashed. The original petition is disposed of holding that the respondents shall continue recovery proceedings only after the assessment is revised on the basis of the resurvey proceedings on completion. Sd/-S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/