IMPORTANT POINTS
When the landholder offers to pay the basic tax due on a land, the Officer entrusted with the duty to collect the same has no authority to refuse it. Refusal to accept tax by the revenue officials on the premise of some pending enquiry or some dispute as to the title which has not even been raised before any authority competent to decide such a dispute, is according to me an abdication of the duty. Such an action, cannot, under any circumstances be tolerated. Every owner of a property, as long as the property.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioners, 3 in number, seek a very innocuous relief of acceptance of land tax for the properties covered by Exts.P1, P3 and P5 title deeds.

2. It is averred in the writ petition that first petitioner is the owner of an extent of 2.99 acres in Re. Sy.No.4/1-2 and 2.30 acres in Re.Sy. No.4/1-6 by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed. The 2nd petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner and owns an extent of 1.214 hectares in Survey No.4/1-, obtained as per Ext.P3 sale deed. The 3rd petitioner is the minor son of petitioners 1 and 2 and is the owner of an extent of 3.70 acres in Survey No.4/1-4 obtained as per Ext.P5 sale deed. The properties are situated in Keezhanthur village.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that their predecessor in title had obtained assignment of the land covered by the above referred title deeds, by virtue of proceedings for land assignment and consequent Pattas were issued as Exts.P2, P4 and P6 produced in the writ petition.

4. Writ petitioners contend that pursuant to purchase of the properties, transfer of registry was carried out and thereafter they had been paying tax in their respective names till 2008-2009, as evidenced by Ext.P7 series of tax receipts. They further submitted that after 2009, the Village Officer refused to accept tax from them, on the ground that there were certain enquiries pending before the higher revenue officials relating to the genuineness of the title deeds of the petitioners. Alleging that refusal to accept land tax from the petitioners on the basis of some alleged enquiry proceedings is not justified, this writ petition has been preferred.

5. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent, Tahsildar, Devikulam stating that the Pattas were issued in 1983 and in 1994 and that there seems to be alienations before the period of ten years which amounts to violation of conditions of the Patta. It is also stated that the veracity of the Pattas issued are liable to be looked into and also that on field verification, certain variations in the boundary, were noticed. It is further averred that even though mutation was effected in the name of the petitioners, identity as to the actual Patta lands with the land in question could not be found.

6. An additional document has been produced by the writ petitioners seeking to bring to the notice of this Court, the final report filed in respect of Crime No.23/CR/EOW-II/KTM/2011 of the CBCID, Kottayam, which is based on FIR No.14/2011 of Marayoor Police Station. It was submitted that the said crime relates to the pattayams issued to the petitioners. A perusal of the final report reveals that after investigation, the Crime Branch has referred the case as ‘mistake of fact’, after entering into observations that justified the Pattas issued.

7. I heard Smt. Parvathy Manoj and Sri.Rajit, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader Smt. Priya Shanavas with Spl. Government Pleader (Revenue) Sri. K.J. Mohammed Anzar.

8. Smt. Parvathy Manoj, the learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently contended that as long as the Patta’s remain in force, there is no justification on the part of the Government to deny exercise of all proprietary rights of title over the properties in question and also that payment of tax is only a consequence of such exercise of the right to title. She also invited my attention to the provisions of The Kerala Land Tax Act 1961 (for short ‘The Act’) and argued that there was no legal justification for the Officer to refuse to accept tax due on the land.

9. I find great force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. As long as the Patta’s remain in force and the same have not been set aside, it is only in the interest of revenue that the taxes for the properties are collected. Merely because there is some alleged dispute on title, the same is not a restriction for accepting tax due on the property. The incidence of land tax, under Section 5 of the Act