• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2021 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1943 WA NO. 1513 OF 2020 (AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DATED 17-02-2020 IN RP NO.1220/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA) APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:- POTTAKALATHIL RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. LATE PANANGATTU VASUDEVAS MENON, LAKSHMI NILAYAM, CHERPLASSERY P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. V. B. RAMANUNNI MENON RESPONDENTS/REVIEW PETITIONERS:- 1. THAHSILDAR, TIRUR-676 101. 2. ADDITIONAL THAHSILDAR, TALUK LAND BOARD, TIRUR-676 101. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, IRUMBIYAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505. BY SRI. V. TEK CHAND, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.05.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. 1513/2020 2 JUDGMENT S. Manikumar, CJ Instant writ appeal is filed by the respondent in R.P. No.1220 of 2019 against the judgment dated 17.02.2020, by which, a learned single Judge of this Court allowed the review petition filed by the respondents herein, observing thus: “7. When this court rendered the judgment in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is not necessary for the High Court which is court of record under Article 215 of the Constitution of India to go in search of another provision to recall its judgment, as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. When a similar contention was raised before the Supreme Court that the High Court has no power to review its own order under Article 226, the Apex Court in Shivdev Singh's case (supra) held that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. The very same proposition was held in M.M. Thomas v. State of Kerala: (2000)1 SCC 666. 8. It is also relevant to note that in the judgment in Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Pratibha Industries Ltd.: (2019) 3 SCC 203, the Apex Court held as follows: “10. Insofar as the High Courts’ jurisdiction to recall its own order is concerned, the High Courts are courts of record, set up under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Article 215 of the Constitution of India reads as under: W.A. 1513/2020 3 “215. High Courts to be courts of record.—Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself.” It is clear that these constitutional courts, being courts of record, the jurisdiction to recall their own orders is inherent by virtue of the fact that they are superior courts of record. This has been recognised in several of our judgments.” 9. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. From the materials produced by the review petitioner, I am of the view that the writ petitioner, has not approached this Court with clean hands. It is seen that material facts were suppressed in the Writ Petition. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to review and recall the judgment. Therefore the judgment dated 12.10.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 32652/2014 is recalled and Review Petition is accordingly allowed and writ petition is restored on file.” 2. Facts leading to the filing of instant appeal are that, appellant is the respondent in R.P. No.1220 of 2019 and the respondents are the review petitioners. Appellant has claimed that he along with his mother and sisters got 13.51 Acres of land comprised in Sy. No.1 of Irumbiliyam Village in Tirur Taluk, Malappuram district, as per Partition Deed No.1325/1969 of SRO, Kuttippuram (Exhibit-P1). It was also stated that except for an extent of 2 acres of land out of the said property covered by Exhibit-P1 partition deed, 11.51 acres of land was in continued possession of the appellant and his mother. W.A. 1513/2020 4 3. Appellant has further stated that on verification of the records, he came to know that the basic tax in respect of the property was paid only upto 1971. Thereafter, he could not pay the land tax regularly. Though the appellant/writ petitioner has approached the Village Officer, Irimbiliyam with Exhibit-P3 representation in 1997 and thereafter with Exhibit-P4 on 24.01.2014, tax was not accepted. Hence, he filed W.P.(C) No.32652 of 2014 seeking for a direction to the Tahsildar, Tirur, respondent No.1 herein to accept the tax in respect of the property in question. 4. After considering the rival submissions, writ court vide judgment dated 12.10.2018 disposed of the writ petition by observing that since the request of the appellant/writ petitioner is only to accept land tax and as it is seen that there is a partition deed (Exhibit-P1), by which writ petitioner's mother, as well as the petitioner claimed to have got property, it is only appropriate that respondents shall accept the land tax from the petitioner subject to the civil proceedings, if any, pending. In the said judgment, the writ court has made it clear that acceptance of basic tax would not provide any right to the petitioner, to claim title over the property, and the respondents are free to accept tax from him, accordingly. Since the respondents did not receive tax as directed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.32562/2014, appellant filed Cont. Case No.1422/2019. During the pendency of the contempt case, respondents W.A. 1513/2020 5 filed R.P. No.1220/2019, along with Annexures-A to I. 5. Appellant has further stated that in the writ petition, the respondents filed a counter affidavit, in which, they have admitted that appellant is the registered holder of the subject property, but they have contended that the entire extent of land was not in the actual possession of the appellant. The respondents have further contended that as per the provisions of the Land Tax Act, 1961, the registered holders are not entitled to pay tax unless their name is changed as per the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. It was also contended that the land tax can be collected only on the basis of sufficient documents. 6. Appellant has further stated that in the affidavit filed along with the review petition, the respondents have stated the reason for review, that major portion of land claimed by the appellant was with outsiders and the respondents are receiving tax from them. This fact is already argued in the writ petition. Apart from that, no new grounds are stated. The point raised in the review petition is, whether land tax can be accepted from the appellant, who has no title or possession. 7. On the above pleadings, the appellant has filed this appeal raising the following grounds: A. Learned single Judge has failed to understand what are the parameters under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, for entertaining a review of its order in the writ petition. W.A. 1513/2020 6 B. The basic things to entertain a review petition have been disregarded by the learned single Judge. C. Learned single Judge has also failed to understand who is entitled to file a review petition. D. Learned single Judge ought to have found the mala fides of the review petitioners in filing a review petition, during the pendency of the contempt petition. E. Learned single Judge ought to have dismissed the review petition as it is delayed, failed to raise any legal grounds and in not considering the law of Land Tax Act and Transfer of Registry Rules regarding payment of land tax and Constitutional provisions. 8. Based on the above, learned counsel for the appellant has made submissions. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record. 10. Referring to Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the procedure provided in the Code in regard to suit shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction, excluding any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, review petition filed by the respondents is not maintainable. 11. Relying on the decision of a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Balan v. Shyamala reported in [2008 (1) KLT 112], learned counsel W.A. 1513/2020 7 for the appellant submitted that power of review is conferred by the statute and court has no inherent power of review. 12. Further, placing reliance on a Full Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in Ram Kinkar Das v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in AIR 2017 Pat 35, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are not per se applicable to the writ proceedings. On the said point, reliance is placed on the decision of a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in George v. State of Kerala reported in 2019 (3) KLT 319. 13. The tax receipts and the documents produced along with the review petition by the respondents would be worthwhile to be extracted. 14. Annexure-A receipt No.KL10040503227/2018 dated 14.09.2018 issued by the Village Officer, Irumbiliyam, is extracted hereunder: “GOVERNMENT OF KERALA RECEIPT District : Malappuram KL10040503227/2018 Taluk : Tirur Village: Irumbiliyam Tax Receipt as per Thandaper No.4689 Item Sub-Item Amount Duration Details 1) Basic Land Same Rs.305 2018- Block-4, Thandaper Tax Year 2019 No.4689 1) Saithalavi, Ahammadkutty Father, Panathodi, Kalamangalam, Valancherry Survey No.

Load more

  31

Copy Link