SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30278

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AHAMMED KABEER – Appellant
Versus
TEH VILLAGE OFFICER – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 3670/2015



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/1ST PHALGUNA, 1936

WP(C).No. 3670 of 2015 (G)

--------------------------------------

PETITIONER(S):

----------------------

AHAMMED KABEER, AGED 36 YEARS,

S/O MUHAMMED KARIMBANAKKAL HOUSE,

AKODE, VAZHAKKAD,

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN

SRI.V.VENUGOPAL

RESPONDENT(S):

-------------------------

1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER

VAZHAKKAD-673640, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

2. THE TAHSILDAR

KONDOTTY TALUK OFFICE,

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673001.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

ON 20-02-2015,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

PJ

WP(C).No. 3670 of 2015 (G)

--------------------------------------

APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

-------------------------------------

EXHIBIT P1:

A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1604 OF 2006 DATED 29.7.2006.

EXHIBIT P2:

A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2192 OF 2006 DATED 1.11.2006.

EXHIBIT P3:

A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1081 OF 2006 DATED 29.5.2006.

EXHIBHTI P4: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 27.10.2006 ISSUED BY THE

VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKAD IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES

COVERED BY EXT.P1.

EXHIBIT P4(A): TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 14.11.2006 ISSUED BY THE

VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKAD IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES

COVERED BY EXT.P1.

EXHIBIT P4(B): TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 8.8.2007 ISSUED BY THE

VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKAD IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES

COVERED BY EXT.P1.

EXHIBIT P4(C): TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 8.8.2007 ISSUED BY THE

VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKAD IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES

COVERED BY EXT.P2.

EXHIBIT P4(D): TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 19.4.2008 ISSUED BY THE

VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKAD IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES

COVERED BY EXT.P3.

EXHIBIT P4(E): TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 21.4.2008 ISSUED BY THE

VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKAD IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES

COVERED BY EXT.P2.

EXHIBIT P4(F): TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 21.4.2008 ISSUED BY THE

VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKAD IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES

COVERED BY EXT.P1.

EXHIBIT P4(G): TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 18.9.2007 ISSUED BY THE

VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKAD IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES

COVERED BY EXT.P2 & P3.

EXHIBIT P4(H): TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.4.2010 ISSUED BY THE

VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKAD IN RESPECT OF THE PEOPERTIES

COVERED BY EXT.P1 & P3.

EXHIBIT P4(I): TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.4.2010 ISSUED BY THE

VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAKKAD IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES

COVERED BY EXT.P2.

PJ

....2/-

..2..

WP(C).No. 3670 of 2015 (G)

--------------------------------------

EXHIBIT P5:

A TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS NO.111 OF 2006 OF

SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, MANJERI DATED 11.3.2014.

EXHIBHTI P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS NO.51 OF 2006 OF

SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, MANJERI

EXHIBHTI P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS NO.25 OF 2010 OF

SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, MANJERI DATED 11.3.2014.

EXHIBHTI P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE

PETITIONER BEFORE THE R1

EXHIBHTI P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25/4/14 ISSUED BY

THE R1

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

---------------------------------------

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

PJ

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

W.P.(C) No. 3670 of 2015

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dated, this the 20th day of February, 2015

JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioner is mainly with regard to the non-

acceptance of tax by the Revenue authorities in respect of the land

covered by Exts. P1 to P3 sale deeds. It is stated that tax was being

accepted by the revenue authorities, as borne by Ext. P4 series. But

subsequently it came to be refused to be accepted, referring to

pendency of civil suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that pendency of Civil case is not a bar for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top