IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM THURSDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 22436 OF 2023 PETITIONERS:

1 JUNUS BRAYAN AGED 23 YEARS S/O. ELDHO K. M., KANIYATTIL HOUSE, POOMALA P.O., WAYANAD, PIN -

673592

2 JUDITH BROWN AGED 24 YEARS S/O. ELDHO K. M., KANIYATTIL HOUSE, POOMALA P.O., WAYANAD, PIN -

673592 BY ADVS. ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL S.SREEDEV RONY JOSE LEO LUKOSE KAROL MATHEWS SEBASTIAN ALENCHERRY DERICK MATHAI SAJI KARAN SCARIA ABRAHAM(K/003189/2023)

RESPONDENTS:

1 THE TAHSILDHAR TALUK OFFICE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD, PIN - 673592

2 VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, AMBALAVAYAL, WAYANAD, PIN - 673593

3 TAX RECOVERY OFFICER INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA KOZHIKODE -673001 * ADDITIONAL R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20.07.2023 IN I.A.1/2023 IN WP(C)22436/2023.

BY ADVS. ADV. P.G. JAYASHANKAR PGJ KEERTHIVAS GIRI GP - DEEPA V THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

‘CR’

VIJU ABRAHAM , J.

===========================

WP(C) No. 22436 of 2023 ============================

Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2024

J U D G M E N T

The above writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to effect mutation in favour of the petitioners and to accept land tax for the properties covered by Ext.P1 settlement deed.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioners are the owners in possession of 1.80.09 hectares of land comprised in Sy.No.298/1A1A1A (Old Sy.Nos. 4712, 4711 and 4713) of Ambalavayal Village, Sultan Bathery Taluk, Wayanad District obtained as per Ext.P1 settlement deed executed by their father. When the petitioners sought to effect mutation and to pay land tax for the property, they were informed by the 2^nd respondent that the 3^rd respondent, the Income Tax Department had attached a portion of the said property for alleged dues of the predecessor in interest, their father.

3. Thereupon, the 1^st petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, regarding the alleged attachment and the 2^nd respondent served him with Ext.P3 proceedings dated

18.11.2019 of the 3^rd respondent along with Ext.P2 letter of the 2^nd respondent. In Ext.P2 letter, the 1^st petitioner was informed that an attachment is in effect in respect of the subject property as per proceedings dated 18.11.2019. Ext.P3 is an intimation issued to the 2nd respondent Village OfÏcer intimating that as part of the recovery proceedings to realize the income tax due they propose to permanently attach some of the immovable properties of the defaulter, who is the father of the petitioners and requested the 2^nd respondent to make arrangement to identify the location of the properties mentioned in the said communication. Petitioners submitted that they cannot put the property to any effective use since mutation has not been effected and the petitioners are unable to remit tax for the said property. Petitioners would further contend that it is settled law that mutation and collection of land tax being only for fiscal purposes does not in any manner affect the title of the property and therefore any attachment on the property cannot be a bar to effect mutation and to collect land tax for the property. Petitioners rely on the judgment in Laila v. Village O Thrikkovilvattom Village OfÏce and Others [2019 (4) KHC 799] in support of their contention. It is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 2nd respondent to effect mutation and to accept land tax for the properties covered by Ext.P1 settlement deed that the petitioners have approached this court.

4. The learned Government Pleader upon instructions submitted that the mutation has not been effected for the reason that there is an order of attachment issued by the Income Tax Department. The learned Government pleader also handed over a copy of the letter i