The revenue officials cannot refuse to accept tax from the land holder on the basis of a dispute over the title of the property, as the land holder is entitled to pay the tax and exercise all rights of ownership.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the non-acceptance of tax of their property by the respondent No.4.

2.According to the petitioners, they are absolute title holders in possession of 20.24 Ares of property comprised in Re-Sy No.1183/1-482 of Methala Village, Kodungallur Taluk. The title deed in favour of the petitioners as well as their prior title deeds are produced as Exts.P1 to P4. The petitioners purchased the property in the year 2007. After the petitioners purchased the property as per Ext.P4, mutation of the property has been effected in their name. Ext.P5 would show that tax has been paid in the name of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, when they approached the 4th respondent to pay tax for the year 2023, the 4th respondent did not permit them to pay tax. It is in these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this court.

3.I have heard Sri.Mansoor Ali, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Smt. Deepa V, the learned Government Pleader.

4.the 3rd respondent has filed a counter statement. in the counter statement, it is stated that the property in question was involved in the ceiling case of one sathar plantations and the ceiling case was decided by the taluk land board, kodungallur as per proceedings no.sr.101/73 dated 30/12/81. the property was originally acquired by kadeeja moideenkutty as per the order in claim petition i.a.no.542/81 of sr 101/73/kodungallur on 30/12/1981. ext.p1 is the said order. thereafter, kadeeja moideenkutty assigned the property as per ext.p2 to abdul jaleel, who assigned 12.15 ares of property to saffiya hussain as per ext.p3. thereafter, abdul jaleel and saffiya hussain assigned the property in favour of the petitioners. in the counter statement, it is contended that kadeeja moideenkutty and her father purposefully mislead the taluk land board for exemption and transferred the land without any patta or order of taluk land board. the 4th respondent is not the authority to decide the question of title over the property. as stated already, the petitioners are in possession of the property as per ext.p4 valid document executed in the year 2007. the mutation was effected in their name and they have been paying land tax from 2007 to 2022. it is settled that when the land holder offers to pay the basic tax 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 premises of some dispute as to the title is not permissible. every owner of a property, as long as the property remains under his/her ownership, is entitled to pay the tax and to exercise all rights of ownership. [see S. Rajkumar and Others v. The Tahsildar Devikulam and Others (2020 ker 17466)]. that apart, mere payment of tax will not confer any title over the property. if, the government has any dispute over the title of the petitioners over the property, it is up to them to initiate appropriate legal action, in accordance with law. the 4th respondent is thus directed to accept tax from the petitioners. this writ petition is disposed of as above.