Possession claims must undergo proper assessment by relevant authorities, even when seeking permission for administrative actions like tax remittance.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that she has been in possession and enjoyment of 49 cents of property, comprised of in Sy.No.7/6 of Maruthoor Amsom, Kodallur Desom, for the past several decades.

2. The petitioner says that the property in question was originally in the possession of her grandmother - who was a 'Kazhakam' in the 'Kodallur Siva Temple' - and that after her time, she and her family has been continuing to reside there.

3. The petitioner points out that, as is evident from Ext.P1 series of reports settled by the various competent Authorities, the residential house is a very old one and that she and her family had been allowed to pay land tax on the same in the past.

4. The petitioner alleges that, however, when she approached the Village Officer for payment of the tax after 1995-96, it has been refused, saying that certain objections have been raised by the 4th respondent, which is a Committee stated to be in Management of the afore Temple.

5. The petitioner contends that the 4th respondent is not a recognized Committee and has no locus in this matter at all; and, therefore, prays that the 3rd respondent – Village Officer be directed to accede to her request, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

6. I have heard Sri.K.Mohanakannan – learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.Santheep Ankarath – learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent; Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayanan – learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader – Smt.Surya Binoy, for the official respondents.

7. Sri.Santheep Ankarath resisted the afore contentions of the petitioner, relying upon a counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent. He pointed out that the Temple in question is under the governance of the Malabar Devaswom Board and that, as is admitted, the petitioner's family was its hereditary 'Kazhakam'. He says that the properties of the Temple, therefore, belong to the 'Idol' and that the petitioner cannot, therefore, claim any title to the same.

8. Sri.Santheep Ankarath, further, explained that, even though the petitioner contends that her grandmother was the title holder of the property, no document has been produced on record to demonstrate the same; and that even if the land tax had been permitted to be paid in the past, it would not confer any title to her or to the petitioner.

9. The learned counsel concluded his submissions by saying that the records maintained in the Revenue Office cannot be used by the petitioner to claim title over the property in question and that the Basic Tax Register (BTR) clearly indicates that the properties are that of the the Temple and 'Ooralan Karuthedath Mana'. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed, particularly because once a paramount title has been admitted, the petitioner ought to have approached the competent Court for declaration of title over the property in question.

10. The learned Senior Government Pleader –

Smt.Surya Binoy, adopted most of the submissions of Sri.Santheep Ankarath as afore and added that, since the petitioner has not produced any document to prove possession over the property in question, it would not be possible for the 3rd respondent - Village Officer, to grant him any relief. She thus prayed that this writ petition be closed, without granting any of the prayers sought for by the petitioner.

11. Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayanan – learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent, also affirmed the submissions of Sri.Santheep Ankarath, arguing that since the petitioner has not produced any document, he cannot claim title over the property in question. He added that if the petitioner has any such claim, he ought to have approached a competent Court for declaration of the title, but could not have approached this Court in this manner.

12. When I evaluate the afore rival contentions, there can be little doubt that the petitioner is relying solely on Ext.P1 series of reports. Of course, she is at liberty to maintain that she and her fam