Tax collection does not confer property title; ongoing disputes must be resolved in court before determining ownership.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of an extent of 4.05 Ares of land comprised in survey sub division number 625/1 of Kakkanad Village. Ext.P1 is the title deed of the petitioner. The petitioner has been paying land tax in respect of the property, as evident from Ext.P3. There is a building in the property. Ext.P2 is the building tax payment receipt issued in favour of the petitioner. The respondents have initiated proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act against the petitioner on the ground that 6 cents of land out of the property covered by Ext.P1 is a puramboke land. It is submitted that the said land conservancy proceedings is still pending. The petitioner has also filed a suit as O.S.No.710/2023 before the IInd Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam to declare that the entire property covered by Ext.P1 belongs to her and that no part of it is a puramboke land. The said suit also is pending. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is to declare that the pendency of the land conservancy proceedings is not a bar in not accepting land tax from the petitioner.

2. I have heard Sri.T.N.Manoj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.A.Jaffar Khan, the learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. Ext.P1 would prima-facie show the petitioner's title over the property. Exts.P2 and P3 would show that the petitioner has been paying land tax as well as building tax in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 and the building situated therein. The learned Senior Government Pleader vehemently argued that the documents produced by the respondent No.2 along with the counter affidavit would clearly show that the petitioner does not have any title over the entire plaint schedule property and she has clandestinely obtained title over the puramboke land. The question whether the part of the property covered by Ext.P1 amounting to an extent of 6 cents is a puramboke land or not is a disputed question of fact pending adjudication in the Civil Court. That is also precisely the issue which is to be decided in the land conservancy proceedings initiated by the respondents. Since, the question whether the 6 cents of land mentioned above is a puramboke land or not is sub judice before a competent Civil Court, this Court cannot adjudicate the said disputed question of fact. As the matter stands now, admittedly, the petitioner is in possession of the entire property covered by Ext.P1. It is settled that mere collection of tax will not confer any title over the property.

Hence, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.1 to continue to accept the land tax from the petitioner in respect of Ext.P1. The respondent No.2 shall make necessary arrangements to accept tax from the petitioner online. However, the payment of land tax will be subject to the final outcome of the civil suit as well as the land conservancy proceedings pending between the parties.