Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 3982
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
A.K.YASMINE – Appellant
Versus
THE VILLAGE OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C) 29439/2024
G.HARIHARAN, SHINE VARGHESE, PRAVEEN.H., SUBYMOL K.J., K.S.SMITHA, B.R.SINDU, V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR, V.ROHITH AFNA, V.P.
Revenue officials must accept basic land tax despite pending legal proceedings, as refusal is unjustified and detrimental to public revenue.
Headnote:
(A) Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 1(3), 3(1), 5, 6 - Writ petition for mandamus to accept basic tax - Petitioner purchased land but mutation not effected due to attachment order - Court held that refusal to accept tax is unjustified and directed acceptance - Previous judgments emphasized that tax collection should not be hindered by pending legal proceedings. (Paras 4, 7, 14)
(B) Revenue officials' duty - Court reiterated that revenue officials must accept basic tax and can note pending attachments without refusal - Failure to do so leads to loss of revenue and may result in liability for interest on unpaid tax. (Paras 14, 15)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's counsel argues against refusal (Para 4 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 2. court reviews attachment order and tax law (Para 5 , 6) |
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The petitioner who owns and possesses 3.25 cents of land in survey No.17/2 and 1.200 cents of land in survey No 17/2B of Kumily Village in Peermade Taluk of Idukki District, on the strength of Ext.P1 sale deed dated 11.09.2013 executed by the previous owner of the property, approached this Court with the above writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent Village Officer, Kumily Village to accept basic tax from her for the said property.
2. According to the petitioner, she purchased the aforesaid properties by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed bearing No.2811 of 2013 of SRO, Peermade on 11.09.2013. But, even after the lapse of ten years, in spite of repeated requests, respondents 1 and 2 did not effect mutation of the properties. The last such request was made by virtue of Ext.P2 application dated 05.08.2024. When the petitioner enquired about the status of Ext.P2 application, the 1st respondent informed her that he would be able to effect mutation of the property only after perusing details of encumbrance over the property. The petitioner had already produced Ext.P3 encumbrance certificate obtained from the Sub Registrar Office, Peermade, for the period from 05.07.2009 to 14.07.2024 before the 1st respondent wherein there is no subsisting liabilities or encumbrance over the property. Hence the petitioner approached this Court with the above writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the refusal to receive basic tax from the petitioner by the 1st respondent Village Officer and the non-mutation of the property by him is without any basis and it is against the settled position of law laid down by this Court in Vijayarajan M.D v. Tahsildar and others [2013 (2) KLT SN 119]
5. The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions from the 1st respondent Village Officer, Kumily, submitted that there is an attachment order dated 25.05.2015 on the property covered by Ext.P1 from the District Court, Thodupuzha, in I.A No.168 of 2015 in (Arb) No.39 of 2015. Hence mutation of the property can be effected only after lifting of the said attachment.
6. The petitioner purchased 3.25 cents in survey No.17/2 and 1.200 cents in survey No.17/2B of Kumily Village by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed dated 11.09.2013 executed by one Muhammed Kunju in her favour. From the Ext.P2 request made by the petitioner before the 1st respondent on 05.08.2024 and from the submissions made by the Senior Government Pleader, it is clear that the mutation of the property to the name of the petitioner was not effected till date by the revenue authorities. In Ext.P3 encumbrance certificate produced by the petitioner for the period from 05.07.2009 to 14.07.2024, no liability or encumbrance over the property is seen entered. But, according to the respondents there is an attachment order against the property from the District Court, Thodupuzha, as per the order dated 25.05.2015 passed in I.A No.168 of 2015 in (Arb) No. 39 of 2015 and the basic tax can be collected from the petitioner after effecting mutation only if the attachment is lifted.
7. In Vijayarajan [2013 (2) KLT SN 119] this Court considered the issue of payment of land tax in the case of pendency of a civil suit or revenue recovery proceedings involving the owner of the land. In the said judgment, this Court held that the payment of land tax is to be made by the holder of the land and the same is in tune with the relevant provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act. The acceptance of land tax in no way is detrimental to the interest of the 4th respondent therein and as such, there is no rationale on the part of the concer
