The challenge in the Writ Petition is against Ext.P2, appellate order of the District Collector, issued under S.9 of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act for short) and the consequential order of the Tahsildar, Ext.P3. According to the petitioners, the property which is subject matter of the impugned orders situates in Melathur village and belonged to their deceased father Sri. N.A. Ravi Varman Unni Mooppil Eradi, and he was the Manager of the School situated in the said property. A society by name "MelathurVidyabhyasa Society" was formed and the school was put in possession and management of the society. The 3rd respondent is the present president of the above said society. It is the admitted case of both the petitioners and the 3rd respondent that there exist disputes with respect to ownership of the property and management of the school. It is further admitted that civil suits were pending with respect to partition of the property among the legal heirs of late Sri, N.A. Ravi Varman Unni Mooppil Eradi and with respect to title of the property between the petitioners and the society. For the purpose of deciding the issue involved in this Writ Petition, it is not necessary to go into details of those disputes pending in civil litigations.

2. The issue involved herein is the dispute regarding entitlement for payment of basic tax with respect to the above said property. The contention of the petitioners is that, after death of their predecessor in the year 1979, the 1st petitioner as legal heir, was paying basic tax with respect to the property. Ext.P1 series basic tax receipts, pertaining to various years in between 1978-1979 and 2000-2001 are produced in support of the above contention. On the contrary, the 3rd respondents contention is that, the society was paying basic tax when they were managing the school. The dispute arose when the Village Officer refused to accept basic tax from Sri. P.K. Vasudeva Panicker, the former President of the society, assigning the reason that civil suits with respect to the question of title on the property, are pending adjudication.

3. From the records it is revealed that, Sri. P.K. Vasudeva Panicker approached the District Collector during the year 2001 and the District Collector vide his proceedings No. B7-6737/01 dated 15.2001 directed the Tahsildar to take a decision on the dispute. The Tahsildar issued proceedings No. B1-2083/01 dated 16.2001, by which it was decided, not to accept basic tax from both parties, in view of pendency of the Civil Suits. It is evident that Sri. P.K. Vasudeva Panicker filed an appeal before the District Collector under S.9 of the Act, and Ext.P2 is the order passed thereon. By virtue of Ext.P2 the matter was remanded back to the Tahsildar with specific directions to accept tax from the President of the society, if it is evident that land tax was being accepted from the society till 1990-91, and if the civil courts have not issued any stay or injunction against accepting basic tax from the appellant. Ext.P3 is the consequential order issued by the Tahsildar. In view of the specific directions in the order of remand, the Tahsildar directed the Village Officer to accept basic tax from the society, subject to final decision in the civil suits pending.

4. The main attack against Ext.P2 and P3 is that, the appeal was filed without impleading the petitioners as parties and that the same was disposed of by the District Collector without notice to the petitioners, inspite of the fact that the appellant Sri. P.K. Vasudeva Panicker died during pendency of the appeal. It is also contented that there was no notice to the petitioners even in the consequential proceedings before the Tahsildar, which culminated in Ext.P3. Nothing is mentioned in Exts.P2 and P3 to show that notice was issued to the petitioners, or they were heard in the proceedings.

5. Ona perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is noticed that the ab