IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2009 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5 of 2009(A) ---------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.A.MEERAN, S/O.LATE ABDUL RAHIMAN, THELAKKATTU HOUSE, ERAMALLOOR PO., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.N.K.KARNIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MOOVATTUPUZHA. 3. TAHSILDAR, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. VILLAGE OFFICER, ERAMALLOOR VILLAGE, ERAMALLOOR.PO., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK. BY G.P. SRI. M.A.ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Appendix Petitioner's Exhibits:- P1: True copy of the sale deed dt. 30-11-1988 in favour of the petitioner and his wife. P2: True copy of the receipt dt. 16-8-1990 issued by Nellikkuzhy Panchayat. P2(a): True copy of the tax receipt for the building No.254/A for the year 1991-92. P2(b): True copy of the tax receipt for the building No.254/A for the year 1992-93. P2(c): True copy of the tax receipt for building No.267/A for the year 2006- 07. P2(d): True copy of the tax receipt for the building No.267/A for the year 2007-2008. P3: True copy of the sale deed No.2197/54 dt. 14-6-1954 of Sub Registry Office, Kothamangalam. P4: True copy of the purchase certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the Land Tribunal Perumbavoor dated 8-1-1998. P5: True copy of the receipt showing the payment of mutation charge issued by the 4th respondent dt. 16-2-1998. P6: True copy of the land tax receipt issued by the 4th respondent dt. 17-8- 1999. P7: True copy of the possession certificate issued by the 4th respondent to the petitioner dated 17-8-1999. P8: True copy of the petition submitted by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent dated 3-5-2008. P9: True copy of the order of the 2nd respondent dt. 31-10-2008 bearing No.A7/3782/08/L.Dis. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 5 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he along with his wife have purchased 80 cents of land as per Exhibit P1 sale deed dated 30/11/1998. According to the petitioner, a building was constructed in the said property, where he is residing with his family. It is stated subsequently, mutation also has been effected and that tax in respect of the property is being paid on that basis. Subsequently when tax was tendered, on the allegation that the property is covered by a ceiling case concerning one Mr. Korath Tharakan, the RDO passed Exhibit P9 order dated 31/10/2008, directing the Tahsildar, Muvattupuzha to examine as to whether property covered by Exhibits P1 and P3 documents is included in the ceiling proceedings and accept tax, if land is not included in such proceedings. Grievance in this writ petition is that since then, there has been no progress, on the part of the Tahsildar, as a result of which petitioner is disabled from paying tax in respect of the property. W.P.(C) No. 5 /2009 2 Learned Government Pleader on instruction submits that it is actually the Tahsildar, Kothamangalam has been ordered to conduct the enquiry as per Exhibit P9, but however it has been wrongly addressed to Tahsildar, Muvattupuzha. Taking into account the submissions made by both sides, I am of the opinion that in view of Exhibit P9, what is required to be done is that the Tahsildar, Kothamangalam, within whose jurisdiction the property is situated, has to conduct the enquiry as directed therein. On such enquiry, if the Tahsildar finds that the property in question is not actually covered by ceiling proceedings concerning Korath Tharakan or that it is wrongly included, it will be open to the Tahsildar to accept payment in respect of the land covered by Exhibits P1 and P3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Tahsildar, Kothamangalam to conclude enquiry as directed by RDO in Exhibit P9 and to accept tax in respect of property covered by Exhibits P1 and P3, if the property is not included in the ceiling proceedings referred to above. Necessarily the case of the petitioner that inclusion of land in the proceedings was W.P.(C) No. 5 /2009 3 erroneous, will also be considered during the course of enquiry. Proceedings as above shall be conducted and concluded as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within two months of production of copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm