THOMAS BABU Vs. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) According to the petitioner, petitioner has purchased 1.33 Ares of garden land along with three storeyed building from one Kuttikrishnan Nair, comprised in Block No.22, resurvey No.122/6/2 of Kottarakkara Village, as per sale deed No.391 dated 04.02.2009 of Kottarakkara SRO. After the purchase of the property, mutation was effected and the petitioner was paying land tax to the same. However, according to the petitioner, all on a sudden, Ext.P7 order is passed by the Tahsildar, without hearing the petitioner, cancelling the mutation. It is thus challenging the cancellation of mutation as per Ext.P7, and seeking other consequential reliefs, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) A statement is filed for and on behalf of the 3rd respondent refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. Among other contentions, it is stated that, revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against one Ommen Panicker for Sales Tax, Royalty dues and Harbour Dues for an amount of Rs. 2,68,76,931/-. Since the defaulter was residing at Vettikkavala Village of Kottarakkara Taluk, landed property belonging to the defaulter was attached under Section 36 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Various court attachments were also effected on the property. Therefore, auction could take place in due course. Later, it was found that an extent of 1.35 Ares of dry land in R.Sy No.122/6 of Kottarakkara Village owned by the defaulter was mutated in favour of one Kuttikrishnan Nair, after the service of demand notice under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. The above mutation was done deliberately by the defaulter to defeat the revenue recovery proceedings. Therefore, the mutation was cancelled. Meanwhile, Sri. Ommen Panicker approached this Court and secured Ext.P6 judgment, and the tax was directed to be re-computed. Thus the original payment was made modified to Rs. 56,05,066/-. Other contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition with respect to the enquiry made by the petitioner are all denied by the 3rd respondent. Other contentions are also raised justifying the action of the Tahsildar in issuing Ext.P7 order.