IMPORTANT POINT
o The two petitioners became the joint registered "land holders" as conceived in clause(d) of Sec.3-The factual scenario in the instant case will stand pigeonholed in terms of clause(d) of Sec.3(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961- When the petitioners have become the registered "land holders", land tax is to be collected from them, going by the mandatory Sec.5(2) r.w.Sec.3(3)(d).
o In a case that the registered "land holder" as conceived in Sec.3(3)(d) assigns the property in favour of a third person, the said assignee will become the "land holder" by virtue of the operation of the third limb of clause (d) of Sec.3(3-The registered "land holder" conceived in the first limb of Sec.3(3)(d) dies, then his legal representatives would stand in the shoe of the "land holder" as per Sec.3(3).
o The mutation of the property and acceptance of land tax will not by itself either create or extinguish title, nor has it any presumptive value on title and it only enables the person in whose favour the mutations are ordered to pay land revenue in question. This aspect of the matter is also amplified with all clarity in Rule 16 of Transfer of Registry Rules

The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

“(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 3 and 4 to take not of the request of the petitioners in Ext P22 and thus permit them to remit the basic tax for the property covered by Ext P18 in continuation of the remittance made for the year 2016-17 and in future as well within stipulated time limits in the interest of justice.

AND

(ii) To pass any such or further orders as the petitioners may seek and this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant.”

2. Heard Sri. Sreekumar G. Chelur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Sr. Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioners who are the brothers had jointly purchased property having an extent of 1 Acre and 15 cents comprised in Survey No.563/2 Part of the Kainoor Village, Thrissur Taluk, Thrissur Revenue District, as per Ext.P-1 registered sale deed No.2809 of 2007, executed in their favour by one Dr. Gopinathan & Krishna Kumar. The said Dr. Gopinathan & Krishna Kumar had in turn obtained the said property as per Ext.P-2 registered sale deed No.4756 of 2005 and Ext.P-3 registered sale deed No.4738 of 2005 of SRO, Kuttanellur respectively. It is stated that the original title holder had obtained the property on the basis of a patta issued on assignment basis and later he had conveyed the said property to his wife Devaky Amma from whom also the basic land tax has also been accepted as per Ext.P-5 receipt dated 16.11.1995. Exts.P-6 & P-7 are the land tax receipts issued in favour of the above said Dr.Gopinathan & Krishna Kumar, who had obtained the said properties as per the above said Exts.P-2 & P-3. It is later that they had conveyed the properties as per Ext.P-1. Thereafter, the property was mutated in the joint names of the two petitioners herein being the joint owners of the said property as per Ext.P-1 and basic land tax has also been accepted jointly, as evident from Exts.P-8 to P-15.

4. That the petitioners have possessed the title and possession and the Puthur Grama Panchayath had also permitted them to construct residential building thereon, in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Building Rules and Ext.P-17 dated 31.12.2013 is the No Objection Certificate issued by the said panchayath to effect construction.

5. Since the property should jointly in the name of the two petitioners, who are brothers as per Ext.P-1 deed, they had decided to partition the said property and for that purpose they have duly partitioned the said property covered by Ext.P-1 as per Ext.P-18 registered partition deed No.1782 of 2016 dated 16.07.2016 of SRO, Kuttanellur. The petitioners have also submitted Ext.P-19 return dated 22.06.2017 before the Grama Panchayath concerned as required under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act for remittance of property tax. The local grama panchayath concerned has insisted that petitioners should produce land tax receipt in their separate names, after the partition of the property, as per Ext.P-18. Accordingly, the petitioners have submitted Ext.P-20 application dated 29.06.2017 before the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar for mutation of the properties pursuant to Ext.P-18 partition deed and for acceptance of basic land tax, etc. The 4th respondent-Village Officer had thereupon submitted Ext.P-21 report dated 01.07.2017 before the 3rd respondent- Tahsildar stating that the basic land tax had been paid upto 2016-2017 and that the petitioners have not produced the patta etc. Since no effective action was forthcoming on Ext.P-20 application, the petitioners were constrained to submit Ext.P-22 representation dated 17.08.2017 before the 2nd respondent- District Collector for directions to respondents 3 & 4 for expeditious grant of mutation, as sought for in Ext.P-20 application, pursuant to Ext.P-18 partition deed etc. However, the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar has now issued