IMPORTANT POINTS:
The respondent Tahsildar therein refused to accept basic land tax from the undisputed legal heir of the deceased registered land holder on the ground that the name of a stranger was shown in the thandaper register of the said property and it was inter alia held by that the action in showing the name of such a stranger in the revenue records after the death of the deceased registered holder and that too without notice to his LRs, will be null and void as otherwise such stranger/third party should be one has lawfully obtained title for the said property to stand in the shoe of the deceased registered land holder so as to displace his LRs to be the “land holder”, who otherwise would stand in his “shoe”, due to clause (d) of Sec. 3(3).

1. The petitioner is deeply aggrieved by the impugned decision as per Ext.P-5 dated 30.01.2018 rendered by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, whereby he has refused to grant mutation and to accept basic land tax in respect of petitioner’s property on the ground that an encroacher has constructed a residential building in the subject property and is residing there.

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

“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Ext.P5 order dated 31.10.2018 of the 3rd respondent;

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to accept basic tax (land tax) from the petitioner and his co-sharers with regard to 8.750 cents of land in Re-Sy.82/1 of Kadannapally village, Kannur Taluk, Kannur District allotted to them in Ext.P2 final decree, by effecting mutation (transfer of registry) in their names in the revenue records.

And

(iii) Such other relief this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Heard Sri.O.V.Maniprasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Sr. Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 to 3. In the nature of orders proposed to be passed in this Writ Petition, notice to contesting respondent No.4 will stand dispensed with.

4. As stated hereinabove, the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents 2 & 3 in refusing to accept basic land tax from the petitioner and his co-sharers for the property that was devolved upon them on the death of their father, who is the original owner and allotted to them as per Ext.P-2 final decree dated 05.04.1994 rendered by the Munsiff’s Court, Payyannur in I.A.No.1101/1992 in O.S.No.124/1983. The said suit is the one for partition. As per Ext.P-2 final decree rendered on 05.04.1994, about 8.750 cents of land in re-survey No.82/1 of Kannappally Village, Kannur Taluk, Kannur Revenue District was allotted to the petitioner, his mother and siblings. The 3rd respondent-Village Officer has refused to collect basic land tax in respect of the said property and on appeal, the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar has now issued the impugned Ext.P-5 proceedings dated 31.10.2018 informing that the basic land tax cannot be collected from the “land holders”, on the ground that for the last 12 years, a person who belongs to the same family but who appears to have no right over the subject property, has constructed a residential building in the said property and has been residing there and that he has not been able to produce any documents to vindicate any of his claims over the subject property. Inspite of this, the nd respondent would assert in Ext.P-5 that he will not accept basic land tax from the petitioner and his other co-sharers. Ext.P-5, reads as follows:

“Any Other Language”

5. It can be seen from Ext.P-5 that a copy of Ext.P-5 proceedings is seen marked to contesting respondent No.4. At the outset this Court would observe for reasons to be dealt with hereinafter that the abovesaid stand of the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar is highly illegal, ultra vires and is vitiated by “wednesbury unreasonableness”, in the sense that no reasonable authority who is properly instructed on facts and law would have ever entertained such a view as the one reflected in Ext.P-5. Cases of this nature are mounting before this Court, where the competent revenue officials like Tahsildar, Village Officer, etc. are consistently either delaying or refusing to grant mutation for flimsy and untenable grounds. This result in driving such “land holders” to this Court for getting justice. The inevitable result is that the writ jurisdiction of this Court is being heavily overloaded due to matters of this nature, which could have been easily resolved at the level of the Village Officer or the Tahsildar. Inspite of resolving such issues from the basic perspectives as borne out