Back
Next 
judgement
2024-06-12
Subject: - Land Disputes
In a recent court judgment, the petitioners, who are the legal heirs of late
The petitioners argued that they are the owners in possession of 8.90 Ares of land in re-survey no.67/11PT1 of Kalanad Village in Kasaragod District. They claimed that their parents had obtained the property as per Exhibit P2, and they had been paying land tax to the government ever since. However, due to an inadvertent omission, they could not pay the land tax for the year 2022, and the Village Officer refused to accept the tax payment.
The 4th respondent, in their statement, contended that the property of the petitioners falls under the classification of 'thottam' and that a total extent of 75 cents in survey no.67/11 has been detailed as excess land, which is why tax has not been collected in respect of the said property.
The court, after considering the factual situation and the declaration of law, found that the refusal of the 4th respondent to accept tax from the petitioners was incorrect and without any basis. The court relied on the judgments in Rajkumar S. and others v. Tahsildar, Devikulam and others, 2020 (3) KLT 403 and Sawarni (Smt.) v. Inderkaur (Smt.) and others, 1996 KHC 964, which established that every owner of a property, as long as the property remains under their ownership, is entitled to pay tax and exercise all rights of ownership.
The court directed the 4th respondent (the Village Officer) to collect the tax from the petitioners in respect of the property covered by Exhibits P1 to P4(a). The court also clarified that even if the tax is received as ordered, the respondents will be free to proceed further against the property as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act or any other provision of law, if found necessary.
Family Judge Exposes Weaponized Litigation in Custody Dispute
14 Feb 2026
Centre Notifies Two High Court Chief Justice Appointments
16 Feb 2026
Deep Chandra Joshi Appointed Acting NCLT President
16 Feb 2026
Debunking the Myth That Indians Lack Privacy Concepts
16 Feb 2026
Whose View Is It Anyway? Juniors Uncredited
16 Feb 2026
Private Property Disputes Not Human Rights Violations; HRC Lacks Jurisdiction Under PHRA: Gujarat HC
16 Feb 2026
Supreme Court Rejects Stay on RTI Data Amendments
16 Feb 2026
DIFC Court: Strong Reasons Required to Block Arbitration
17 Feb 2026
Bar Leaders Oppose High Courts Saturday Sittings
17 Feb 2026
Tax payment should not be withheld due to claims without a civil dispute; different property surveys justify tax acceptance.
Tax acceptance does not confer property rights under Kerala Land Tax Act; refusal based on court attachment is incorrect.
Verification of property surveys must be conducted expeditiously while upholding parties' rights regarding tax payments.
The court emphasized the necessity of verification of land documents and provisions for provisional tax payments pending review of authenticity.
The court affirmed the need for governmental compliance with earlier court orders and the petitioner’s rights under applicable land laws.
Possession and kanam rights are upheld when evidenced by documentation and continuous enjoyment by the original tenants and their legal heirs.
The court emphasized the importance of the appropriate authority in addressing survey discrepancies and ensuring timely redressal.
Court recognizes implications of prior judgments on land reassessment applications, directing authorities on procedural compliance.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
