DISTRICT COLLECTOR Vs. KOCHUTHRESIA @ LEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above review has been filed by the State. The brief facts which led to the writ petition is that, the petitioner who purchased 14.470 cents of land by Ext.P1 had been paying land tax for the entire property purchased by her till 1991. Subsequently, when the authorities refused to accept tax, the petitioner made an application for 'patta'. The Tahsildar found that the petitioner's predecessor in interest had obtained 'patta' only for 3.840 cents and the Revenue could not accept tax for the balance land coming to 10.630 cents. The petitioner then approached the Chief Minister's Public Grievance Redressal Cell pursuant to which Ext.P5 was issued by the District Collector. This Court relying on the statements in Ext.P5 as also the Form of Order of Assignment on Registry produced as Ext.P6, directed that 'patta' be issued to the petitioner in pursuance of Ext.P6 Order of Assignment on Registry as provided under Rule 9(2) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, hereinafter referred to as " the Assignment Rules". The said judgment was passed on 03-02-2012. The above review has been filed on 31-10-2012 with an application for condonation of delay of 210 days. Since a contempt was pending against the second respondent, the matters were posted together.

(2.) THE contention of the State in the review is that the petitioner had originally, on 27-06-1996, made an application as per Annexure A1. On such application being received, by Annexure A2, it is contended that Ext.P6 was cancelled. Subsequently, the petitioner had come forward with Annexure A3 undertaking to pay the market value. It was later that Annexure A4 application dated 1-2-2001 was filed; on which the petitioner had approached the Grievance Redressal Cell as noticed above. The learned Special Government Pleader Revenue, Sri.Soyuz would contend before me that Ext.P6 stands cancelled by Annexure A2 and the petitioner has suppressed Annexure A3, by which she specifically undertook to pay the market value. The learned Special Government Pleader would also take me to the 'Note' under Rule 9(2) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. As per Note(1), the authority competent to assign land for beneficial enjoyment shall be the Revenue Divisional Officer and such assignment under Sub Rule 3 of Rule 6 can only be subject, to the payment of the market value of the land.

(3.) LOOKING at Rule 6, the extent of Government land that could be registered in favour of a family and as house site, in 1975, could not exceed 25 cents. The total lands in the possession of the petitioner is less than the said ceiling provided under the Rules. It is also very pertinent that the petitioner has produced Ext.P3 series which evidences payment of tax for the entire lands till the year 1991. The authorities refused to take tax for 10.630 cents on the reasoning that no 'patta' was issued for that portion. There is no explanation forth coming as to why 'patta' was issued only for 3.840 cents, and if so, how the tax for the entire lands were collected till the year 1991.