9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (2) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able by one Veeranna Thevar for the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. An extent of 6 acres 4 cents comprised in Sy. No. 62/2 and 4 of Chathurangapara Village is property registered in the name of the writ petitioner (respondent herein). The said property had been leased out by the writ petitioner in favour of two persons by name, Thanka Pandian and Nakaraja Nadar, as per a registered lease deed dated 18th June, 1966. The right of those lessees devolved on one Veeranna Thevar by virtue of transaction of assignment. Veeranna Thevar had cultivated the property with cardamom and he was assessed to agricultural income-tax for the years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71. A total amount of Rs. 5,010.98 was payable by Veeranna Thevar to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and August 26, 1975. By Ex. P-3 the petitioner was informed by the village officer, Chathurangapara, that if she did not remit the sum of Rs. 5,010.98, representing the agricultural income-tax arrears, before 15th August, 1975, her land will be brought to sale by public auction without delay. By the communication, Ex. P-4, the petitioner was informed by the same authority that her cardamom land had been taken possession into government custody with effect from August 26, 1975, and that the petitioner was prohibited from collecting any crops from the said estate. Thereupon the petitioner came up to this court seeking to quash Exs. P-1, P-3 and P-4. The learned single judge allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned revenue recovery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the person who was in receipt of the agricultural income during the assessment years in respect of which the arrears are sought to be realised by the impugned proceedings was Veeranna Thevar. The question to be considered is whether the petitioner is a person to whom Veeranna Thevar has transferred his interest in the lands concerned so as to attract the applicability of S. 23. The property admittedly belonged to the petitioner and a lease thereof had been purported to be granted jointly in favour of Thanka Pandyan and Nakaraja Nadar in June, 1966-we say purported-because a doubt has been expressed by the learned single judge in his judgment about the validity of the said transaction in view of S. 74 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act-and Veera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
