The main prayer in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows :

“to issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the Respondents to accept basic tax in respect of 0.1445 hectares in Re.Survey 292/3 of Tehnkurussi Village of Palakkad District covered by Ext.P1 within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”

2. Heard Sri. V.B. Ramanunni Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. A.C. Vidhya, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner claims to be the only legal heir of late Raghavankutty Mannadiar, who died on 15.8.1984 at Vengody in Palakkad District. According to the petitioner, her deceased father, Raghavankutty Mannadiar, was the title holder of the land covered by Ext.P-1 partition deed in Re-Sy.No.292/3 having an extent of 0.1445 hectares in Thenkurussi Village in Palakkad District. The petitioner's father was the registered land holder of the said land and basic land tax was also accepted from him in terms of Sec.3(3)(d) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. That Ext.P-2 death certificate would show that the petitioner's father had died on 15.8.1984. At the time of his death, he had left a daughter by name Girija, who died later on 29.8.2009 and a son by name Ramadas, who later died on 7.2.2016 and the only remaining legal heir of late Raghavankutty Mannadiar, is the petitioner herein. That, both the abovesaid siblings of the petitioner had died without leaving any legal heirs. Therefore, consequent to the death of the siblings of the petitioner, she is the sole legal heir of the deceased father, Raghavankutty Mannadiar. That the petitioner was in Gujarat for quite sometime in connection with her employment and hence could not take steps for effecting payment of basic land tax. After the death of brother, Ramadas, the petitioner had tried to pay the basic land tax and she had approached the respondents by submitting letter dated 16.3.2017 for acceptance of basic land tax. However, the respondents have consistently refused to accept basic land tax for the abovesaid property by Ext.P-3 letter dated 11.4.2017 wherein it has been intimated by the respondent-Additional Tahsildar that on enquiry it is found that the property is not in the possession of the petitioner and that earlier it was in the possession of one Sri. Kandan and one Smt. Ponnu, etc. Further, Sri. V.B. Ramanunny Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit on the basis of instructions that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property covered by Ext.P-1 deed and that enquiry would reveal that it is the petitioner, who is in possession and no one else, including Ponnu, widow of late Kandan, is in possession, etc. Further it is also submitted by the petitioner's counsel that none of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 envisage that basic land tax could be accepted only if the person is in indisputable possession of the property and the application of the respondent -Revenue authority is to collect land tax from the land holder as per Sec.3(3) of the abovesaid Act in respect of the property concerned.

4. The 1st respondent (Tahsildar) has filed statement dated October, 2018 stating that the land which is sought to be mutated is recorded in the name of Sri. Kandan and Smt. Ponnu, wife of Kandan, as per the village records and that as the BTR shows the name of Sri. Kandan, S/o. Pazhanimala, and that, as the land was not in the possession of the petitioner as per those records, the request of the petitioner for mutation and acceptance of basic land tax cannot be granted, etc., and that Kandan is no more and that on 8.12.2017, Ponnu (widow of Kandan) and the petitioner could not produce any document to prove their title over the land. However, it is stated by R-1 in the impugned Ext.P-3 proceedings that the petitioner's deceased father obtained the property on the basis of registered partition deed No.663/1963 of S.R.O., Kuzhalm