Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 26347 OF 2024 PETITIONERS:
1 MOLLY LOUIS AGED 75 YEARS W/O LOUIS , KOONAMMAVIL VEEDU, KAKKOD P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM., PIN - 691331
2 REENA SANJAY AGED 50 YEARS W/O SANJAY MANI CHERIAN, THENGUMPALLIL HOUSE, GANDHI NAGAR P.O., ARPUKKARA, EAST KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686008
3 LEENA BERTY AGED 48 YEARS W/O LATE BERTY, KOONAMAVIL VEEDU, KAKKODU P.O., PUNALUR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691331 BY ADVS.
AMRIN FATHIMA J.RAMKUMAR ARAVIND AJITH RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (REVENUE) SECRETARIAT, THRIVANDRUM., PIN - 695001
2 THE THASILDAR PUNALLUR TALUK OFFICE PUNNALLUR KOLLAM., PIN - 691305 OTHER PRESENT:
DEEPA V., GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners claim to be the owners in possession of the properties covered by Exts.P1 and P2. The petitioners paid tax in respect of the properties covered by the above documents till 2015. The grievance of the petitioners is that thereafter the 2nd respondent is not accepting the tax. It is in these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court.
2. I have heard Smt.Amrin Fathima, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Deepa V, the learned Government Pleader.
3. Exts.P1 and P2 would prove prima facie title of the petitioners over the property. Ext.P3 would show that the petitioners have paid tax till 2015.
4. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the properties covered by Exts.P1 and P2 were part of the Government land identified as the Kulikad Estate, which was held by the erstwhile M/s.Malayalam Plantation (UK) Limited. These lands were abandoned by the English company on the independence of the country and thus the ownership of the property vested with the Government of Kerala as per Article 296 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the petitioners do not have any title over the property. If the Government claims any title over the property, it is up to it to initiate legal action in accordance with law to recover the property. Since the petitioners have established the prima facie title and possession over the property, the 2nd respondent cannot refuse to accept land tax from the petitioners.
5. Hence, the 2nd respondent is directed to accept the land tax from the petitioners. However, it is made clear that mere acceptance of the land tax from the petitioners will not confer them any title over the property. The Government is free to initiate appropriate legal action, if any against the property in accordance with law.
With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE AS APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26347/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
3570/2004 IN THE NAME OF LATE M.B.
LOUIS.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
3571/2004 IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
28/03/2015.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
09.08.2019 IN WP(C) NO. 25228/2016 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
19.07.2023
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
