PULLIYIL THANKAMMA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri. Mahesh V. Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Saigi Jacob Paletty, the learned senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that she is in absolute possession and enjoyment of 140 acres (5.4248 Hectors of land) in Re-Survey No.113/3 of Alapadamba Village, Taliparamba Taluk, Kannur District. The grievance projected by the petitioner essentially is regarding non-acceptance of the basic tax of the aforesaid property by the 3rd respondent Village Officer, without valid reasons. The petitioner would contend that Ext.P2 is the extract of the Basic Tax Register (Adangal register), which shows that the above said property of 5.4248 hectors of land is registered in the name of the petitioner as a separate survey sub-division (Re-Survey No.113/3) of the above said Village. It is further pointed out that, by Ext.P4 report dated 16.02.2013, the 3rd respondent Village Officer has informed the 2nd respondent Tahsildar that the basic tax has been paid in respect of the above said property from 1962 upto 1986. The petitioner would also state that out of the total extent of 140 acres (5.4248 Hectors of land), in Re-Survey No.113/3, an extent of 7.60 acres of land was obtained by her on the basis of Ext.P1 assignment deed dated 10.12.1970 and that the remaining property, out of the total extent of 140 acres, was obtained by her on the basis of an oral lease from the jenmi. It is contended that Ext.P1 Kuzhikkanam assignment deed dated 10.12.1970 is an unregistered document, in as much as the purchase value for the said property shown therein was only Rs.15/- and therefore, since it is below the limit of Rs.100/-, no compulsory registration was required. The petitioner claimed herself that she is a cultivating tenant under the provisions of the Kreala Land Reforms Act and that from 1970 upto 1986 she was paying the basic tax and prior to 1970, the predecessor tenant was paying the basic tax. The petitioner would submit that, as is evident from Ext.P4, there was wrong endorsement by the Village authorities, after the year 1986, that land in question registered in the name of the petitioner is the surplus land under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and that on this ground, the competent Village authorities were consistently refusing to accept the basic tax for the period from 1987 till date. It has been stated by the 3rd respondent Village Officer in Ext.P4 report dated 16.02.2013 submitted by him to the 2nd respondent Tahsildar that the above said endorsement that it is an excess land could be a mistake.