J U D G M E N T

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent to accept land tax from the petitioner for the properties covered by Ext.P1 deed.

2. Petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of

13.75 cents of land comprised in Resurvey No.107/6 of Tanur Village which was purchased as per Ext.P1 deed. Thereafter mutation was effected and land tax was accepted from the petitioner as is evident from Ext.P2. Later, tax was not accepted by the respondent stating that there is an attachment over the property as per order in I.A. No.3 of 2022 in O.S. No.108/2022 of Sub Court, Tirur. Petitioner contend that even if there is an attachment on the property, that will not in any way affect the title of the property.

3. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submits that, only for the reason that there is an attachment order issued by a Civil Court that the tax is not being accepted. 4.

Petitioner relies on the judgment of this Court in Sudan K.K.

and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2013 (4) KHC 201]

wherein in an identical situation this Court has directed to accept the tax. Paragraph 4 and 5 of the said judgment reads as follows.

“4. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that tax was not accepted only because of the complaints preferred by the parties to the Civil Court. But the fact remains that the matter has become final by virtue of Exts.P2 and P3 and as such, there is no rationale on the part of the respondents in refusing to accept the land tax from the first petitioner. Even otherwise, pendency of civil suit can ever be a bar with regard to the acceptance of land tax, unless specifically restrained from accepting the tax by virtue of any order passed by the Court. This aspect has already been dealt with by this Court while passing judgment in WP(C) No.10771 of

2013.

In the said circumstances, this Court finds that the petitioners are entitled to succeed. There will be a direction to the respondents to accept the land tax in respect of Ext.P1 property from the first petitioner as and when the same is surrendered. It is also made clear that, if the party, who lost the battle before the Civil Court vide Exts. P2 and P3, has preferred any further proceedings by way of second appeal or otherwise, the acceptance of tax from the first petitioner as above, will not a bar to pursue such proceedings in accordance with law and it shall be subject to the outcome of such litigation.”

In Sudan K.K.’s case this Court has held that pendency of suit cannot be a bar with regard to acceptance of land tax unless the authority is specifically restrained from accepting tax by virtue of any order passed by the Court. Since such contingency is not available in the present case, I am of the opinion that the stand of the respondent that they will not accept the land tax in view of the attachment order passed by the Civil Court cannot be accepted. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondent to accept land tax in respect of property covered by Ext.P1 deed. It is made clear that acceptance of tax will be always be subject to the final disposal of the civil suit pending.

With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of.