J U D G M E N T

The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of 28 cents of land in Sy.No.2403 and 2403/8 of Attipra village. The petitioner's father obtained the property as per Ext.P8 partition deed. It is alleged that after the death of the father of the petitioner, the property devolved upon the petitioner being his sole legal heir. It is also alleged that the land was twice acquired by the railway and what remains with the petitioner is 10 cents of property. The petitioner has approached this Court, since the 3^rd respondent refused to accept the land tax from him. The request of the petitioner to accept land tax was rejected by the 2^nd respondent, as per Ext.P7 communication. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court to quash Ext.P7 and to direct to accept the land tax.

2. I have heard Sri.S.Nidheesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Deepa V., the learned Government Pleader.

3. The reason stated in Ext.P7 is that the property does not have a clear cut boundary and that there is some confusion regarding possession of the property. Ext.P8 would prima facie show that petitioner's father is the title holder of the property. Ext.P1 is