SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Ker) 87

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Anwar. M. Easa – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioners:V.P. Sukumar Advocate. For the Respondent: Government Pleader.

Judgment :-

"C.R."

The petitioners say that land tax is not being collected from them on grounds referable to the pendency of revenue recovery proceedings. The collection of revenue is income for the State. There is no inhibition in the law relating to revenue recovery prohibiting collection of land tax in the name of the Thandaper holder and also issuance of receipts to the person who pays land tax as the receipt of land tax and the issuance of receipt will, in no way, hinder the revenue recovery proceedings. The question of the Government getting the title over the property would be only if it purchases the property in revenue auction. If the sale under the Revenue Recovery Act, following attachment, is in favour of a third party, the transfer of title will go accordingly. The mere attachment will not result in an encumbrance which would necessarily deprive the State of its right to collect land revenue. Under such circumstances, there is no reason why land revenue shall not be collected in relation to the property in question, in the account of the Thandaper holder. The writ petition is, therefore, ordered directing that without prejudice to revenue recovery proceedings (Ext.P1)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top