IMPORTANT POINTS
The contingencies envisaged in clause (a), (b) and (c) of the Sec. 3(3) of the above Act may not arise, but since the petitioner has purchased the property from the predecessor of the registered holder as per Ext.P-1, certainly she is the assignee of the registered land holder as understood in clause (d) of Sec. 3(3) and so she would fulfill the definition of “land-holder” as understood in Sec. 3(3) more particularly clause (d) thereof. Sec. 5(2) of the Kerala Land Tax mandates that the competent revenue officials like the Tahsildar, Village Officer, etc. are obliged to collect land tax from land holder concerned as understood in Sec. 3(3). Therefore, competent revenue officials like respondents 1 and 2 are obliged to accept basic land tax from the land holder concerned, as otherwise it would be violation of the mandate in Sec. 5(2) and Sec. 3(3) of the Land Tax Act. Accordingly, it is ordered that the 1st respondent Village Officer will immediately take up the request made by the petitioner in the abovesaid application for grant of mutation and acceptance of basic land tax as made out in Ext.P-2 etc. and after affording reasonable opportunity of being of heard to the petitioner will grant the said request for mutation and will also issue basic land tax receipt in that regard forthwith.

JUDGMENT :

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action on the part of the 1st respondent Village Officer refusing to mutate subject property and to accept basic land tax on the mere ground of pendency of revenue recovery proceedings initiated as against the property covered by Ext.P-1 sale deed. The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

“(a) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P-3 order and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction.

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order directing the respondents to effect transfer of registry on the basis of Exhibit P-1 sale-deed.

(c) To issue such other writ, order or direction during the course of the proceedings found to be fit and proper to grant by this Honourable Court.”

2. Heard Sri. A. Jani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Priya Shanavas, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. It is stated the petitioner is the absolute title holder of an extent of 1 Are 62 sq. mtr. of property comprised in old Sy. No. 4711 in Re-survey No. 116/5/2 in block No. 23 of Thrikkovilavattom Village, Kollam Taluk, Kollam Revenue District, which she obtained on the basis of Ext.P-1 registered sale deed dated 17.3.2005 of SRO, Kannanallur. The petitioner was residing in a gulf country (UAE) with her husband for a very long time.

4. She has submitted application 18.7.2017 for transfer of registry and for grant of mutation in respect of the said property covered by Ext.P-1 registered sale deed and as no action was forthcoming on the same, she has also submitted Ext.P-2 application dated 26.9.2018 before the 1st respondent. In response to Ext.P-2 application, the 1st petitioner has now issued Ext.P-3 letter No. 616/18 informing that since revenue recovery proceedings have been pending against the predecessor in interest of the petitioner's property, he is not in a position to accede to the request for grant of registry and mutation and to accept basic land tax, etc. It is this proceedings at Ext.P-3 is under challenge.

5. This case is also one among the numerous cases of similar nature, which have now been routinely handled by this Court, about which this Court has now issued a series of judgments by which even the higher authorities of the State have been called upon to give necessary instructions to the competent revenue officials like, Village Officer, Tahsildar, etc. who are responsible for the proper enforcement of the Kerala Land Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder to ensure that applications of this nature are considered in the simple legal perspective as borne out from those statutes and not to unnecessarily get into complex and irrelevant issues. From a reading of Ext.P-3 proceedings it can be seen that the only ground of rejection of the request of the petitioner for grant of registry and mutation, etc. is on account of the alleged pendency of the revenue recovery proceedings said to have been initiated against the predecessor in interest of the subject property.

6. It has been held in a catena of decisions by various High Courts including this Court as in Tulasibhai vs. State of Kerala, 2010 (4) KLT 215 and Nevin Raju vs. S. Basheer and Others, 2015 (3) KLJ 197, that mere pendency of revenue recovery proceedings or attachment proceedings, etc. will not be sufficient justification on the part of the Village Officer, Tahsildar, etc. for refusing to accept basic land tax from land holders concerned. It has also been held that there are no provisions in the Transfer of Registry Rules interdicting acceptance of basic land tax on account of such contingency and that the competent revenue officials are obliged to accept land tax from the land holders concerned, as otherwise it would amount to loss of revenue to the public exchequer and would also amount to dereliction and abdication of the statutory duties of the competent revenue officials concerned. It has a