JUDGMENT

The issue raised in this writ petition relates to the property having an extent of 18.21 Ares (45 Cents) comprised in

Sy.No.42/2 of Ezhikkara Village in Paravoor Taluk, covered by Thandapper No.B135. The petitioner, who is claiming ownership and possession over the property, has filed Ext.P7 application dated 06.03.2019 before the 2 nd respondent Tahasildar (LR), seeking permission to remit land tax. On the other hand, the 4 th respondent, who is claiming the ownership and possession over the very same property, has filed Ext.P11 representation dated

21.01.2019 before the 2 nd respondent for effecting mutation and to accept land tax. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents to hear the petitioner or his authorised representative before taking any further proceedings on the basis of Ext.P11 application or any requests of like nature, submitted by the 4 th respondent for mutation of the property having an extent of 18.21 Ares (45 cents) comprised in Sy.No.42/2 of Ezhikara Village, bearing Thandapper No.B135. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that respondents 2 and 3 are not competent to entertain Ext.P11 application, as it is beyond their statutory powers to decide the question of alleged oral tenancy raised by the 4 th respondent, without relegating the 4 th respondent to have recourse to the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act through appropriate forum and on compliance of mandatory procedures prescribed therein; and a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to permit the petitioner to pay land tax of the property having an extent of 18.21 Ares (45

cents) comprised in Sy.No.42/2 of Ezhikara Village.

2. On 04.10.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court issued notice before admission to the respondents. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to the 4 th respondent. This Court granted an interim order staying further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P11 application made by the 4 th respondent, before the 2 nd respondent, pending disposal of this writ petition.

3. The 4 th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. The petitioner has also filed a reply affidavit.

4. A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2 nd respondent, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is the Thandapper holder of Thandapper No.B135 in Ezhikkara Village, and there are certain disputes between the petitioner and the 4 th respondent in respect of the said property.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and also the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent have raised various legal and factual contentions against consideration of Ext.P7 application made by the petitioner and Ext.P11 application made by the 4 th respondent, which are now pending consideration before the 2 nd respondent Tahasildar (LR). The learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent would submit that the petitioner and the 4 th respondent shall raise appropriate legal and factual contentions before the 2 nd respondent Tahasildar (LR), including the question

of maintainability of Exts.P7 and P11 applications.

7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is dispose of, leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner and the 4 th despondent, by directing the 2 nd respondent Ta