J U D G M E N T

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the

3^rd respondent to mutate the property covered by Ext.P4 sale certificate in favour of the petitioner and to accept property tax. 2. Petitioner purchased an extent of 5 ares and 70 sq.mtrs of land along with a residential building situated therein having an extent of 1350 sq.ft in Sy.No. 52/33A, Re.Sy. No.48 in Block No.180 of Changanacherry Village by virtue of an auction sale conducted by the South Indian Bank as is evident from Ext.P2 sale certificate. Ext.P2 sale certificate has been issued by the authorised ofÏcer in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 13(12) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 read with Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules 2002. When the bank ofÏcials took steps to register the above sale certificate in favour of the petitioner before the Sub Registrar’s OfÏce, Changanacherry, the registering authority raised objections for registering the above said property holding that there are certain attachments pending against the property which has been purchased by the petitioner. Thereupon the bank ofÏcials have approached this Court filing WP(C) No.

32023/2022 and this Court as per Ext.P3 judgment directed the registering authority to register the sale certificate on presentation observing that the attachments which were effected on the subject property were after the creation of the equitable mortgage before the Bank. Pursuant to the said direction issued as per Ext.P3 judgment the sale certificate has been registered. Thereafter petitioner requested for mutation of the property in his name and for remittance of the property tax which has now been refused by the 3^rd respondent. Petitioner relies on the judgment in Laila v. Village O KHC 799] wherein paragraph 6 and 8 reads as follows.

“6. It has been held in a catena of decisions by various High Courts including this Court as in Tulasibhai v. State of Kerala, reported in 2010 (4) KLT 215, Nevin Raju v. S.Basheer & Ors. reported in 2015 (3) KLJ 197 : 2015 KHC 3676 : 2015(3) KLT SN 6, that mere pendency of revenue recovery proceedings or attachment proceedings, etc. will not be sufÏcient justification on the part of the Village OfÏcer, Tahsildar, etc. for refusing to accept basic land tax from land holders concerned. It has also been held that there are no provisions in the Transfer of Registry Rules interdicting acceptance of basic land tax on account of such contingency and that the competent revenue ofÏcials are obliged to accept land tax from the land holders concerned, as otherwise it would amount to loss of revenue to the public exchequer and would also amount to dereliction and abdication of the statutory duties of the competent revenue ofÏcials concerned. It has also been held by various High Courts and the Apex Court in decisions as in Surney v. Inder Kaur reported in AIR 1966 SC 2823 that mutation of the property in the revenue records does not create any or extinguish title, nor has it any presumptive value on title and it only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered, to pay the land revenue in question. Moreover, the petitioner has purchased the property on the basis of Ext.P-1 registered sale deed. It is not in serious dispute that the subject property in question was duly registered in the name of the petitioner's predecessor, who conveyed the property in question to the petitioner as per Ext.P-1 and therefore he/she is the registered land holder of the property in question. Sec. 3(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, which defines, “Land holder” as follows:

“3(3): “Land holder” means,-

(a) in relation to any land held by a cultivating tenant as defined in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964), such cultivating tenant;

(b) in relation to any land in the possession of a kanam tenant as defined in the K