Nanicheri Veettil Govindan Nair vs Village Officer on 24 February, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 2968 of 2007()


1. NANICHERI VEETTIL GOVINDAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. VILLAGE OFFICER, RAMANTHALI VILLAGE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA,

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

4. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY THE

5. KASI MANGALATH ILLATH

                For Petitioner  :SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR

                For Respondent  :SRI.CIBI THOMAS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.SURENDRA MOHAN

 Dated :24/02/2009

 O R D E R
                      C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
                           K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
                 ....................................................................
                          Writ Appeal No.2968 of 2007
                 ....................................................................
                 Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009.

                                        JUDGMENT

Ramachandran Nair, J.

Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge

whereunder the Single Judge directed the Tahsildar to receive land tax

pertaining to disputed property from the 5th respondent in the Writ

Appeal who was the petitioner in the W.P.(C). While the case of the

appellant is that he is the owner in possession of the disputed land

covered by purchase certificate issued to him under the Land Reforms

Act, 1977, the case of the 5th respondent appears to be that the property

is still in his name. Going by the judgment of the learned Single Judge

it is clear that tax was directed to be received from the petitioner in the

W.P. only because title deed of the property was in his name.

Appellant was given interim order in the suit filed before the Civil

Court whereunder the injunction application of the 5th respondent

herein was dismissed. We find force in the contention of the appellant

that the learned Single Judge should not have ordered collection of land

2

tax from the 5th respondent when he does not have claim that he is in

possession of the land. In any case we do not think the payment of tax

during pendency of the suit under orders of this court will advance the

case of either party. We make it clear that the suit should be decided

on it’s own merits and without considering orders of this court passed

in the Writ Petition with regard to payment of tax. Since appellant is

found to be in possession by the civil court, we modify the judgment by

directing the Tahsildar to receive tax pertaining to the property as a

deposit from both the parties i.e. from the appellant and from the 5th

respondent, until final judgment is issued in the Suit and thereafter

adjust it towards tax based on judgment and refund the deposit to the

other party. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Judge

K.SURENDRA MOHAN
Judge
pms