Jolly, vs the Secretary,

JOLLY, vs The Secretary,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Aug 22, 2023

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1383090

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1383090
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice D. K. Singh
Decided On: Aug 22, 2023
Case Number: WP(C)/22975/2019

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

JOLLY,

Advocate Sri. Shiju Varghese

Respondent

The Secretary,

Excerpt

.....to accept the property tax from the petitioner with respect to the building no.xi/710 assessed with the 2nd respondent. c. cost of the proceedings and d. issue such other order or direction, as this honourable court deem fit, fair and proper in thefacts and circumstances of the case.3. the petitioner is the decree holder of buildingno.xi/710 of adoor municipality, pathanamthitta district. the petitioner had filed original civil suit no.41/2011 before the munsiff’s court, adoor for declaration and injunction in respect of the said property. the said suit was decreed by judgment dated 12.8.2012 passed by the musiff’s court, adoor. the petitioner was declared as the absolute owner of the schedule property and the defendants/respondent no.3 has to be restrained from creating any encumbrance, conveyance in respect of the civil property. it appears that respondent no.3 had filed a civil suit and obtained a exparte decree r3(a). later petitioner filed an application on the order r3(a), it was allowed and later on the suit filed by the respondent no.3 got dismissed by the judgment dated 03.08.2022. in the mean time ext.p13 communication has been issued regarding the assessment of the said building by respondent no.3. as soon as the petitioner came to know about this fact cleared by an application for correction of record by ext.p16. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no decision has been taken by the municipality on the representation made by the petitioner,ext.p16.4. considering the fact that the petitioner is thedecree holder of the property in question and he has filed an application for rectification on the record by ext.p16, it would meet the interest of justice of the municipality. accordingly, respondent nos. 1 and 2 are directed to take appropriate decision in accordance with the law on the representation filed by the petitioner, ext.p16 within a period of three months.5. with the aforesaid directions, the writpetition stands disposed of. sd/-.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 31ST SRAVANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 22975 OF 2019 PETITIONER: JOLLY, AGED 61 YEARS W/O. PAPPACHAN, HOUSE WIFE, BETHEL HOUSE, PARAKKODU P.O., ADOOR VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-691 554 BY ADV SHIJU VARGHESE RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY, ADOOR MUNICIPALITY, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-691 523 2 ADOOR MUNICIPALITY, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-691 523, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 3 SUTHIN THANKACHAN, AGED 29 YEARS S/O. LATE THANKACHAN, VALUVILAYIL HOUSE, EAZHAMKULAM P.O., EZHAMKULAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-691 554, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SUJATAHA BABU, W/O. BABU, VALUVILAYIL HOUSE, EZHAMKULAM P.O., EZHAMKULAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN-691 554 BY ADV V.VIJITHA ADV.K.SHAJ- SC FOR RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2023

1. Heard Sri. Shiju Varghese, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ms.V.Vijitha learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent and Sri.K.Shaj, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs:

a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Ext.P13 communication dated 16.07.2019 and all its consequential entries in the records of the 2 nd respondent. b. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the 1 st respondent to accept the property tax from the petitioner with respect to the building No.XI/710 assessed with the 2nd respondent. c. Cost of the proceedings and d. Issue such other order or direction, as this Honourable Court deem fit, fair and proper in the

facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The petitioner is the decree holder of building

No.XI/710 of Adoor Municipality, Pathanamthitta District. The petitioner had filed Original Civil Suit No.41/2011 before the Munsiff’s Court, Adoor for declaration and injunction in respect of the said property. The said suit was decreed by judgment dated 12.8.2012 passed by the Musiff’s Court, Adoor. The petitioner was declared as the absolute owner of the schedule property and the defendants/respondent No.3 has to be restrained from creating any encumbrance, conveyance in respect of the civil property. It appears that respondent No.3 had filed a civil suit and obtained a exparte decree R3(A). Later petitioner filed an application on the order R3(A), it was allowed and later on the suit filed by the respondent No.3 got dismissed by the judgment dated 03.08.2022. In the mean time Ext.P13 communication has been issued regarding the assessment of the said building by respondent No.3. As soon as the petitioner came to know about this fact cleared by an application for correction of record by Ext.P16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no decision has been taken by the Municipality on the representation made by the petitioner,Ext.P16.

4. Considering the fact that the petitioner is the

decree holder of the property in question and he has filed an application for rectification on the record by Ext.P16, it would meet the interest of justice of the Municipality. Accordingly, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to take appropriate decision in accordance with the law on the representation filed by the petitioner, Ext.P16 within a period of three months.

5. With the aforesaid directions, the writ

petition stands disposed of. Sd/- DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE AP APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22975/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 6.6.2019 EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 4.9.2003 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 27.8.2005 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 8.3.2006 EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 27.9.2006 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 20.3.2007 EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 13.11.2007 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 15.3.2008 EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 1.9.2008 EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 29.7.2009 EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 6.2.2010 EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 25.1.2011 EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.R1-4715/2019 DATED 16.7.2019 EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION BY R3 BEFORE R1 BY R3 BEFORE R1. Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS NO. 41/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ADOOR DATED 12.08.2022 Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05.12.2022

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties JOLLY, vs The Secretary, Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice D. K. Singh