K.E.Reesha vs the Tahsildar,

K.E.Reesha vs The Tahsildar,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 01, 2022

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1562596

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/1562596
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran
Decided On: Feb 01, 2022
Case Number: WP(C)/29203/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

K.E.Reesha

Respondent

The Tahsildar,

Excerpt

.....respondent may be allowed to make an endorsement on the tax receipt that the aforementioned mfa is still pending.4. when i consider and evaluate the aforesubmissions, it is inevitable that, as at present, the notification issued under the “efl act” had been challenged by the petitioner and the competent tribunal found in her favour. true, an mfa is stated to be pending before this court, but in the absence of any interdictory orders having been issued therein, i do not see how the second respondent can refuse permission to remit land tax to the petitioner, particularly when it is asserted that she in possession of the same even today.5. of course, the question whether petitioner is inactual possession or otherwise is a matter which this court cannot look into at this stage and it has to be verified by the authorities, as and when the petitioner approaches them either for a possession certificate or such other.6. as of now the only prayer of the petitioner is to allow her to remit land tax on the property in question, for which, i do no see any reason to deny such benefit. in the afore circumstances, i order this writ petition,and direct the second respondent to allow the petitioner to remit land tax on the property in question and to accept the same as and when it is tendered by her, leading to the issuance of a tax receipt, with an endorsement that mfa no.161/2012 is pending with respect to the property. needless to say, if the petitioner approaches the second respondent or such other competent authority in future, for a possession certificate or such other with respect to the property, all necessary enquiries can be conducted, as to if she is in actual possession.sd/- devan ramachandran judge raj/01.02.2022. appendix of wp(c) 29203/2021 petitioner exhibits exhibit p1 a true copy of the assignment deed dated 26- 10-2002 of mananthavady sub registry exhibit p2 a true copy of the land tax receipt dated 17- 06-2016 issued by 2nd respondent to the petitioner......

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 12TH MAGHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 29203 OF 2021 PETITIONER: K.E.REESHA AGED 37 YEARS D/O. LATE ABDUL GAFOOR AND W/O. SINEWRAZ, RESIDING AT RAJEENAZ MANZIL, NEW MAHE P.O, KANNUR 673 311 BY ADVS. V.V.SURENDRAN P.A.HARISH ANUSREE.C RESPONDENTS: 1 THE TAHSILDAR, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANADU 670 645 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PERIYA VILLAGE , MANANTHAVADY, WAYANADU 670 645 3 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER NORTH WAYANAD DIVISION, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD 670 SRI. ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN - SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of February, 2022. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the second respondent is refusing to accept land tax

with respect to her property, comprised of in Re.Sy.No.8/1A1A2 of Periya Village, though it was allowed to be done until the year 2016. She alleges that the third respondent is known to have issued certain directions to respondents 1 and 2, asking them to refuse acceptance of land tax on the property, solely because there was a notification issued with respect to it under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003 (EFL Act).

2. The petitioner explains that the afore notification was challenged successfully by her before

the competent Tribunal and concedes that a Miscellaneous First Appeal (MFA) has been filed by the Department of Forest against it, which is still pending before this Court. She argues that, therefore, there is no legal impediment in the second respondent allowing her to remit land tax on the property in question and that this cannot be denied for any reason.

3. The afore submissions of Sri.V.V.Surendran - learned

counsel for the petitioner, were answered by Sri.Aswin Sethumadhavan - learned Senior Government Pleader, saying that as long as the MFA is pending before this Court at the instance of the Department of Forest, it may not be possible to allow the petitioner to remit land tax on the property in question. As an alternative suggestion, he submitted that if this Court is inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner, then second respondent may be allowed to make an endorsement on the tax receipt that the aforementioned MFA is still pending.

4. When I consider and evaluate the afore

submissions, it is inevitable that, as at present, the notification issued under the “EFL Act” had been challenged by the petitioner and the competent Tribunal found in her favour. True, an MFA is stated to be pending before this Court, but in the absence of any interdictory orders having been issued therein, I do not see how the second respondent can refuse permission to remit land tax to the petitioner, particularly when it is asserted that she in possession of the same even today.

5. Of course, the question whether petitioner is in

actual possession or otherwise is a matter which this Court cannot look into at this stage and it has to be verified by the Authorities, as and when the petitioner approaches them either for a Possession Certificate or such other.

6. As of now the only prayer of the petitioner is to allow her to remit land tax on the property in question, for which, I do no see any reason to deny such benefit. In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition,

and direct the second respondent to allow the petitioner to remit land tax on the property in question and to accept the same as and when it is tendered by her, leading to the issuance of a Tax Receipt, with an endorsement that MFA No.161/2012 is pending with respect to the property. Needless to say, if the petitioner approaches the second respondent or such other competent Authority in future, for a Possession Certificate or such other with respect to the property, all necessary enquiries can be conducted, as to if she is in actual possession.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Raj/01.02.2022. APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29203/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 26- 10-2002 OF MANANTHAVADY SUB REGISTRY Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 17- 06-2016 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10-03-2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.A 115/1977 OF THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE DATED 18-12- Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MFA 148/1980 DATED 18-02-1982 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN O.A BEFORE THE FOREST TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14-06-

2012 IN OA 4/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR EFL CASES/1ST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KOZHIKODE

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties K.E.Reesha vs The Tahsildar, Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran