SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) Vs. P.C. MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals are by State of Kerala and some of its officers against two judgments in two writ petitions filed by the first respondent herein. Heard the learned Special Government Pleader for the Department of Revenue and the learned Senior counsel appearing for the first respondent.

(2.) On 21.07.1969, Plemeena, since deceased; was issued a due statutory decision and resultant provisional 'patta' in terms of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960; the 'Act', for short, and the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964; for short, the 'Rules'.

(3.) Till 2001, no basic tax was paid by the aforesaid assignee of Government land. That is an institutional shame on the face of the Constitution given unto themselves by 'We, the People of India' and the laws of this land. Such executive lethargy is infra dig and anathema to the vibrant philosophies and doctrines of self -governance embedded in the Constitution of India. Whatever be the result of the adjudication that would follow hereunder; if there is anybody in the domain of executive, who are in slumber, let them be cautioned that the days have come to wake them up in fear of peril, if they do not respond to their duties. Ultimately, the first respondent, who claims to be the son and heir of Plemeena, made a representation stating that the Survey Department did not earmark the land assigned to his mother. Through order in O.P.No.27604 of 2001, this Court directed consideration of that representation. The resultant order is Ext.P12 in O.P.No.4059 of 2002. That was issued holding that since no land tax was paid till 24.07.2001 and because the property has already been acquired for a project at the instance of requisitioning authority, there is no question of the basic tax register being rectified, by including the property with reference to the aforenoted assignment. The learned single Judge quashed that decision for the prime reason that even as per Ext.P12, which was impugned in O.P.No.4059 of 2002, it was the admitted situation that an extent of 43.500 cents of land stood assigned to Plemeena, now deceased, from river purampoke in survey No.845 of Mulavukadu Village as per B6 LA 567/97 of Tahsildar, Kanayannur. That being so, the learned single Judge rightly issued the judgment in O.P.No.4059 of 2002 by holding that the mere fact that tax was not paid or that the property was later acquired for another project and that the assignee did not show that the said person continued to be in possession, is insufficient to refuse inclusion of the name of the assignee in the basic tax register. Resultantly, the learned Judge directed the competent authority to re -consider the issue in the light of what is stated in the judgment. We do not see any legal infirmity in the approach adopted by the learned single Judge in that regard.