High Court Kerala High Court

T.V.Josekutty vs State Of Kerala on 24 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
T.V.Josekutty vs State Of Kerala on 24 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 7637 of 2008(H)


1. T.V.JOSEKUTTY, AGED  YEARS
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TAHSILDAR, THALUK OFFICE

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER

                For Petitioner  :SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :24/11/2010

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

             ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                  W.P.(C) No. 7637 of 2008 H
             ```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
          Dated this the 24th day of November, 2010

                            J U D G M E N T

Case of the petitioner is that as decree holder in

O.S.No.795/1993, the petitioner purchased the judgment

debtor’s immovable property, in the court auction held. It is

his case that subsequently, he was also issued Ext.P3 sale

certificate and the property was also delivered to him.

Petitioner further states that in pursuance to the above, he is

in possession of the property having an extent of 45 cents and

situated in survey No.159/5(R.S.No.117/3) of Parambathkavu

amsom and desom, Koduvally, Kozhikode Taluk. Case of the

petitioner is that despite the above, tax is not accepted.

2. If as stated by the petitioner, he is the owner and

the property has been mutated, there is no reason why tax is

not accepted from the petitioner. Similarly, there is also no

reason why a possession certificate is issued if the petitioner

is in possession of the property. Though this writ petition was

W.P.(C) No.7637/08
: 2 :

admitted way back on 06-03-2008, there is no counter

affidavit filed by the respondents. Learned Government

Pleader submits that despite repeated communications,

instructions also have not been furnished.

3. Thus, the allegations in the writ petition stand

uncontraverted.

In that view of the matter, I dispose of the writ petition

directing that if the petitioner remits tax in respect of the

property mentioned above, that will be accepted and the

petitioner will also be issued possession certificate if an

application for that purpose is made by the petitioner.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks