Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 44249
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T. R. Ravi, J
SHYAMALA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/27350/2022
A valid pattayam under the Kerala Land Reforms Act carries a statutory presumption that ensures entitlement for tax payment, irrespective of record-keeping issues.
Headnote:
Tax - Property Tax Payment - Kerala Land Reforms Act - Sections discussed provide a framework for tax remittance obligations and the validity of pattas. The court emphasized the statutory presumption of the pattas in allowing the petitioner to pay the tax.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a senior citizen, sought to pay land tax for inherited property but was denied by the authorities due to the alleged decay of tax records. She filed a writ petition for a directive allowing payment and issuance of receipts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that similar cases had established the validity of the petitioner's pattayam under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, thereby entitling her to pay land tax regardless of the condition of the tax remittance register.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to remit land tax for her property despite the authorities' refusal based on the condition of the tax records.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a valid pattayam has statutory presumption, permitting tax payment despite issues in record-keeping of tax receipts.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed, and the authorities are directed to accept the land tax payment and issue a receipt.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a senior citizen. Her husband late P.V.Sankaran was issued with Ext.P1 pattayam with respect to properties in Sy.No.1183, having a total extent of 1 Acre 88 cents in Madakkathara Village. An extent of 90 cents was assigned to one Johnson and the remaining extent of 98 cents devolved on the petitioner and her daughters upon the death of Sri Sankaran. The petitioner was regularly remitting tax till 2008 in respect of the property as evidenced by Ext.P3 series receipts. Thereafter, when the petitioner approached the 4th respondent to remit land tax, she was informed orally that is not feasible to accept land tax for the property, since the register pertaining to tax remittance is decayed and got destroyed. Though the petitioner has filed Ext.P6 complaint before the 4th respondent highlighting the grievance, no action has been taken on the same.
2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to grant sanction to the 4th respondent to accept land tax in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 pattayam in the name of the petitioner; to direct the 4th respondent to accept land tax in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 pattayam commencing from financial year 2008 onwards till 2022 and issue tax receipt; to direct the 1st respondent to finalise the alleged issue of BTR decaying/destruction in Madakkathara Village with regard to Ext.P1 pattayam; and for other consequential reliefs.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.
4. The petitioner has produced Ext.P9 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.8025 of 2022, wherein in similar circumstances, this Court held that as the Patta remains valid and has the statutory presumption attached to it under the Kerala Land Reforms Act , the petitioner has to be permitted to pay land tax in respect of the property. The respondents were directed to accept the tax and issue necessary tax receipt. I do not find any reason to take a different view.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The 4th respondent Village Officer is directed to accept land tax and issue tax receipt to the petitioner in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 pattayam as and when the petitioner tenders the same.
Sd/- T.R. RAVI JUDGE
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR,LAND TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR DATED
03/11/1978.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.75 DATED
19/04/1980 IN SY.NO.1183 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SANKARAN.
Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.17 DATED
13/03/1984.
Exhibit P3B TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.44 DATED
06/06/1990.
Exhibit P3C TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.88 DATED
09/03/1992.
Exhibit P3D TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.4498877 DATED
17/01/2004.
Exhibit PE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.4817847 DATED
07/04/2008.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE FOR COMPENSATION BEARING NO.017640 DATED 17/04/1992 ISSUED FOR LOSS SUFFERED DUE TO CUTTING AND REMOVAL OF TREES.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.1177/2004 DATED
19/03/2004 OF SRO OLLUKKARA EXECUTED BY SANKARAN IN FAVOUR OF JOHNSON.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 2022 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT RECEIVED FOR EXHIBIT P6 COMPLAIN AS PER RECEIPT DATED 26/07/2022 BEARING NO.B5-405547/22 C ADDRESSED TO PETITIONER BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT RECEIVED FOR REMITTING BUILDING TAX AS PER RECEIPT DATED NIL BEARING NO.3744638 IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 8025/2022 DATED
07/04/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
