IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 997 of 2010(Y)
1. NAKOTTIL MOHAMMEDKUTTY HAJEE,
... Petitioner
2. NAKKOTTIL HASSAINAR HAJEE, POTTAMMAL
3. NAKKOTTIL PATHUMMAKUTTY,
4. NAKKOTTIL MOHAMMED ASHARAF,
5. NAKKOTTIL ABDUL MAJEED,
6. NAKKOTTIL MARAKARUKUTTY,
7. NAKKOTTIL KUNHUMOHAMMED,
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR, ERNAD TALUK,
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHERUKAVU,
4. NARAYANI, W/O.KOTTARATHIL MAVUNNI,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :15/01/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.997 OF 2010
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of January, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are owners of various items of properties
having 35 Acres in extent in R.S.No.199 and 200 in Cherukavu
village, Ernad Taluk in Malappuram District. Presently, the
survey numbers have been changed as 230 and 231 respectively.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that out of the larger
extent, some properties were assigned to strangers and rest of
the properties are with the petitioners. A civil suit as
O.S.No.177/1983 was filed by the petitioners as plaintiffs seeking
for prohibitory injunction restraining the 4th respondent and
others from trespassing into the properties. The suit was decreed
and Exhibit P1 is the copy of the judgment.
3. The matter was taken up in appeal by the opposite side
and finally in S.A.No.475/1992, this Court restored the trial court
judgment as per Exhibit P2. Now the matter is pending before
the Apex Court at the instance of the 4th respondent.
W.P.(C) No.997/2010 2
4. The grievance raised by the petitioners is regarding non-
acceptance of basic tax by the revenue authorities. It is the case
of the petitioners that the basic tax was being accepted by the
authorities and only after the disposal of the Second Appeal,
there is inaction on the part of the Village Officer presumably at
the instance of the 4th respondent.
5. Exhibit P5 is the order passed by the 2nd respondent
wherein the Village Officer has been directed not to accept basic
tax till a decision is finally taken in the Special Leave Petition
pending before the Apex Court. Challenging the same, the
petitioners have filed Exhibit P6 appeal before the 1st respondent
District Collector. Exhibit P6(a) is the postal acknowledgment
receipt received from the 1st respondent.
All that the petitioners pray is for a direction to the District
Collector to take a decision on Exhibit P6 within a time frame.
There will be a direction to the District Collector to take a
decision on Exhibit P6 within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the
petitioners, 4th respondent and any other necessary parties. The
W.P.(C) No.997/2010 3
petitioners will produce a copy of this judgment along with copy
of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
smp