Verification of property ownership and the right to remit tax must consider continuous possession provided by sufficient documentary evidence.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that he purchased 3 Acres and 75 cents of land, comprised of in Survey No.212,141, (Re.Sy.No.58/5-1, 59/2-1 of the Vazhayur Village, through Ext.P1 and that he subsequently sold 1 Acre 53 cents out of the same, to a person by name Sri.Basheer Haji through Ext.P2. He says that after the sale, Sri.Basheer Haji obtained the Transfer of Registry of the said property in his name, which is evident from Ext.P3 Encumbrance Certificate. The petitioner then points out that, as is clear from Ext.P3, his original extent has been shown to be 3 Acres 75 cents, out of which 1 Acre 53 cents has been shown in the name of Sri.Basheer Haji.

2. The petitioner says that even though he has been in continuous possession of the larger property ever since Ext.P1 and of the balance after Ext.P2 sale, the Village Officer is refusing to accept tax from him saying that the Thandaper Register with respect to it is in the name of some other persons.

3. The petitioner says that the afore stand of the Village Officer is wholly incorrect because, even as per Ext.P7 report - which the said Authority settled on 26.07.2019, the property has been found to be in his possession and that this becomes indubitable because he has been issued Possession Certificates in the years 2015, 2017 and 2018, which have been produced as Exts.P9, P10 and P11 respectively.

4. The petitioner says that he therefore, approached the Tahsildar, who then issued Ext.P6 order asking the Village Officer to cause an inspection and then permit him to remit tax over the property in question, since the Thandaper account in relation to it, continues to be in his name. The petitioner alleges that inspite of Ext.P6, no action has been taken by the Village Officer.

5. I have heard Sri.K.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George, learned Government Pleader.

6. The learned Government Pleader conceded that no action has been taken by the Village Officer pursuant to Ext.P6, explaining that this is because, when he inspected the property, he found that the same was in the possession of several persons, which have been averred in the statement filed before this Court on 03.08.2021. He submitted that as is limpid from paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said Statement, in the resurvey records as also the Basic Tax Register (BTR), the land is shown to be in the name of a certain late Sankaran Kutty Nair and that his legal heirs are now remitting tax. He prayed that, therefore, this writ petition be dismissed.

7. The afore submissions of the learned Government Pleader certainly creates some confusion because the petitioner has produced documents to show that he is in possession of the property; while the Village Officer takes the stand that, as per the resurvey records, the property belongs to somebody else. Obviously therefore, the documents relied upon by the persons who are now alleged to be in possession of the property, will require to be verified and then evaluated, on the basis of the original survey and resurvey records, which alone can dispel the confusion in the matter effectively. In fact, this is what the Tahsildar has instructed the second respondent – Village Officer to do.

8. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and direct the second respondent – Village Officer, to act as per the instructions given to him by the Tahsildar, after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as also any other person who are interested; thus culminating in an appropriate order on his request for permission to remit land tax with respect to the property claimed by him under Ext.P1, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, depending upon the decision to be taken by the Village Officer, the petitioner will be allowed to remit land tax without any avoidable delay thereafter.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7575/2020 PE