2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 36394
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 19659 OF 2019 PETITIONER:
ELSTONE TEA ESTATE LTD., REPRESENTED BY MOIDEEN KUNHI, MANAGING DIRECTOR, M/S.
ELSTONE TEA ESTATE, KALPETTA.P.O., WAYANAD-673121 BY ADVS.
K.M.ANEESH SRI.K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM)
SRI.ADARSH KUMAR SRI.DILEEP CHANDRAN RESPONDENTS:
1 VILLAGE OFFICER, KALPETTA VENGAPALLY, KALPETTA, WAYANAD-673121
2 THAHSILDAR, THALUK OFFICE, VYTHIRI, WAYANADU DISTRICT, PIN-673576
3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANADU COLLECTORATE, KALPATTA.P.O, WAYANADU DISTRICT PIN-
673122 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.JAFAR KHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2021
['K M ANEESH', '', 'SRI K SANTHOSH KUMAR KALIYANAM', 'SRI ADARSH KUMAR', 'SRI DILEEP CHANDRAN', 'GOVERNMENT PLEADER']
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the correction/reduction made in their Thandapper account regarding the extent of the property owned, without notice.
2. Heard the learned counsel and perused the pleadings.
3. Documents have been produced before this Court to show that till the year 2017-18, the petitioner was paying tax for an extent of 179.4674 Hectares of property in Re.Sy.No.398/1/1 and that the said extent was included in the Thandapper account and the Basic Tax Register. Thereafter the extent of property is seen reduced. The petitioner did not have any notice regarding any such correction.
4. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the corrections have been made consequent on the request of third parties claiming right over portions of the property on the basis of registered documents.
5. If any request was received for correction in the registry/Thandapper account, it was incumbent on the authorities to have put the petitioner on notice and afforded an opportunity of hearing. Entries in the Thandapper account of the petitioner should not have been modified and certain extent transferred to the account of some other claimants, without putting the petitioner on notice. The rival claimants are not before this Court. I am of the opinion that it would be sufficient if the second respondent considers the issue and passes appropriate orders with due notice to the parties.
6. Accordingly it is ordered that, in the event of the petitioner submitting a petition before the second respondent complaining about the corrections made in the registry as regards the extent of property held, the same shall be considered by the second respondent and appropriate orders passed with due notice to the rival claimants, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19659/2019 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
8.12.2017 FOR THE YEAR 2017-2018 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED
14.03.2018 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NEW EXTRACT OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER ISSUED ON 4.05.2019 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED
4.5.2019 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
3.07.2019 ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT -----