IMPORTANT POINTS
o Property was mutated in favour of the previous title holder Sri.Eldho and as tandaper account number was also duly allotted to him- Eldho is the registered "land holder" -- Where the registered "land holder" assigns the property, then by the force of the operation of clause (d) of Sec.3(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, the assignee of the registered "land holder" will automatically stand in the shoe of the "land holder"-
o Respondents 5 & 6, are under the legal obligation to accept basic land tax from the petitioners going by the force and mandate of Sec.3(3)(d) read with Sec.5(2) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961- Any general order issued by officials like the 2nd respondent-District Collector, 3rd respondent- RDO or even any executive orders issued, etc. cannot whittle down the above said statutory force of the applicability of Sec.3(3)(d) r/w Sec.5(2) of the Kerala Land Tax Act-
o Mutation of the property and acceptance of land tax will not by itself create or extinguish title, nor has it any presumptive value on title and it only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question- This aspect is also enshrined in the provision contained in Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966

1. The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

“i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 2nd respondent to direct the 6th respondent to accept the land tax dues.

ii. issue directions to accept applications for submitting mutation process from the petitioners side for facilitating appropriate changes in the village records and other connected revenue records.

iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate direction commanding the RDO to consider Ext.P12.

iv. issue such other writ or orders or directions, which this Honourable court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Sri. P.M. Girijavallabhavan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Sr. Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the competent authorities among the respondents, more particularly respondents 5 & 6 to grant mutation and to accept basic land tax in respect of his property covered by Ext.P-1 registered sale deed dated 13.07.2010 of SRO, Devikulam.

4. The following aspects are discernible from the pleadings and materials placed on record in this case. The subject property in question was originally assigned in favour of one D.Mary, as per Ext.P-7 patta certificate No.13449 dated 08.12.1993 issued by the 5th respondent-Tahsildar (LR), Devikulam as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. Later, the said Mary had conveyed the said property covered by Ext.P-7 patta to one Shamsudeen, as per Ext.P-6 registered sale deed No.2653 of 1994 dated 03.08.1994 of SRO, Devikulam. Later, the said Shamsudeen had conveyed the said property to one Eldho, as per Ext.P-5 registered sale deed No.1238 of 2006 dated 20.04.2006 of SRO, Devikulam. Pursuant to Ext.P-5 registered sale deed, the 5th respondent-Tahsildar (LR) had allotted tandaper account No.1727, as per Ext.P-2 in favour of the said Eldho. Exts.P-3 & P-4 are the location certificate and the possession certificate, issued in favour of the said Eldho, in respect of the property covered by Ext.P-5. Later, the said Eldho had conveyed the said property in favour of the petitioners as per Ext.P-1 registered sale deed dated 13.07.2010 of SRO, Devikulam. The extent of property covered by Ext.P-1 registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner comes to 2.60 Acres (105.22 Ares) comprised in resurvey No.46/1-3 (old survey No.435) in block No.14 of Pallivasal Village, Devikulam Taluk, Idukki Revenue District. The petitioners would point out that the said property covered by Ext.P-1 registered sale deed is having clear cut boundaries and three of its boundaries viz., north, west and south are bounded by the petitioners’ own other properties and as per the recital in Ext.P-1 deed, the eastern property thereof is the property of one Murugadas. Later, when the petitioners had approached the competent authorities like respondents 5 & 6, they have consistently refused to grant mutation of the said property covered by Ext.P-1 in favour of the petitioners and to accept basic land tax from the petitioners. The petitioners had made several attempts to submit their formal application for grant of mutation, etc. and the same was not even received by them, on the ground that there are general instructions issued by the higher revenue authorities that the mutation and the land tax shall not be granted or that land tax should not be accepted, in respect of properties in Devikulam Taluk, presumably due to the problems associated with the “Munnar opertions”, which happened in 2007 and thereafter. Thereafter, the petitioners have submitted Ext.P-8 petition dated 30.04.2017 before the 3rd respondent-RDO for directions to the sub-ordinate officials like respondents 5 & 6 to grant mutation and to accept basic land tax. The petitioners have also submitted Ext.P-9 dated 01.02.2018 before the 5t