The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to the first respondent to accept the land tax in respect of property covered by Ext.P2 decree and Ext.P5 tax receipt. 2. The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of 3.25 Ares of property in the Survey No. 549/14/1(Re-survey No.67 in Block No. 64) of Alappuzha West Village. There was some dispute with the Government with reference to the identity of property and the petitioner had to file a suit O.S.No. 1228/1999 before the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha. The suit was decreed and the boundaries of the petitioner's property had been fixed as CDIJ in Ext.C1(b) plan. Further directions were issued restraining the defendants in the said suit namely, State of Kerala and the revenue authority by a permanent prohibitory injunction from entering into any portion of the said land and obstructing the plaintiff from the enjoying the said property. On the basis of Ext.P1 judgment and Ext.P2 decree petitioner approached the third respondent for rectification of re-survey records. Ext.P4 is the proceeding by which the third respondent has corrected the re-survey records. The petitioner submits that she had remitted the tax for the property up to 2011 as evident from Ext.P5 tax receipt. But when she approached the first respondent for remittance of tax for the year 2012, the same was not accepted on the ground that Ext.P4 proceedings had not reached the 1st respondent. In the above circumstances, petitioner had approached this Court.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the second respondent, inter alia stating that by virtue of proceeding dated 24.09.2011 of the Deputy Director of Survey, Alappuzha the revenue authorities were directed to cancel the petitioner's 'thandaper' and to convert the property to 'puramboke'. Ext.R2(a) is the said proceeding. Perusal of Ext.R2(a) indicates that the property in question was in the old survey No. 594/14 which comes under Block No. 64 on re-survey. The said property is treated as Government land. As per the decree in O.S.No. 1228/99 the property was measured and sub division No.5 was given in respect of 3.25 Ares in re-survey No.67. Therefore, according to the respondent authority, the property of the petitioner having an extent of 3.25 Ares comes under re- survey No.67/5 in Block No. 64.
4. Further it is stated that out of extent of 1 Acre 64 cents in old survey No. 594/14, 1 Acre 43 cents were acquired by the Government and the balance land came into possession of the petitioner as per document No. 1237/1964 of SRO, Alapuzha and thereafter she had assigned the said property to Mariam Beevi as per sale deed No. 1986/1981 of SRO, Alappuzha. It is stated that in the judgment of Munsiff Court, the acquired land having an extent of 1 Acre 43 cents was wrongly shown as 1 Acre 35 cents, which resulted in the judgment being passed. Therefore, according to the Survey Deputy Director, the petitioner does not have any land in the property and hence directions were issued not to collect tax. It is in the said circumstances that Ext.P4 order passed by the Re-Survey Asst. Director was cancelled.
5. The Government have further indicated that based on the aforesaid order dated 24.09.2011, the Village Officer was called upon to cancel the petitioner's 'thandaper' and convert the property as 'puramboke'. Ext.R2(b) is the 'thandaper' register.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions, it is apparent from the pleadings that according to the revenue authorities, the factual statements as stated by the petitioner was totally incorrect, which resulted in the decree being passed. The suit O.S.No. 1228/99 is filed by the petitioner for fixation of boundary and seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants. The decree has been passed by fixing the boundaries. The court has not given any declaration of title in favour of the petitioner. Having regard to the fact that the revenue authorities have taken a contention that the property included as the plaint schedule property in O.S.NO. 1228/99 is Government 'puramboke' land, Ext.P4 came to be cancelled and as matters stand now, the Government has a case that the petitioner has no title to the property. Infact, when written statement was filed in the said suit, the Government had taken a contention that out of 1 Acre 64 cents of land comprised in survey No. 549/14, 1 Acre 35 cents of land alone has been acquired, whereas in Ext.R2(a) proceedings it is stated that acquisition was in respect of 1 Acre 43 cents. The balance land was acquired by the petitioner which she had conveyed in favour of Mariam Beevi and therefore, no further land is available. This aspect of the matter is not considered by the Civil Court.
7. As matters stand now, the title of the petitioner is disputed by the revenue department. As already stated there the issue regarding title had not arisen in the suit O.S.No. 1228/99, whereas it is only a case where petitioner had sought for fixation of boundaries and for injunction. Since a dispute is presently raised by the Government in regard to the land in question, petitioner may have to seek her remedy by seeking appropriate declaration before a Civil Court.
8. The petitioner has in fact filed W.P.(C) No. 27263/13 challenging Ext.P7, which is Ext.R2(a) in W.P.(C) No. 18680/13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P7 in W.P.(C) No. 27263/13 has been issued without notice to the petitioner. Since the issue involved substantially effects the right and interest of the petitioner, especially in the light of a decree for fixation of boundary as O.S.No. 1228/99, before relegating the petitioner to approach the Civil Court, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to address her contentions before the fourth respondent.
In the result, this writ petition is disposed as under.
The petitioner shall submit a representation to the fourth respondent, who shall reconsider Ext.P7 and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to ventilate her grievance appropriate orders may be passed afresh. Petitioner shall also be given a copy of the particulars under which land having an extent of 1 Acre 43 cents has been acquired as alleged in Ext.P7. The issue regarding payment of tax will be subject to any orders passed by the fourth respondent.
Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE sd // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE