The petitioner is required to exhaust statutory remedies under the Kerala Land Tax Act before filing a writ petition in the High Court.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P23 proceedings of the 2^nd respondent District Collector, Idukki, dated 20.10.2017, rejecting the plea of the petitioner against mutation of the subject property in favour of the 11^th respondent.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is the brother of the 10^th respondent, who is not on good terms with the rest of the family members. The 10^th respondent attempted to take control of the entire property, which is a plantation, but ultimately, this Court appointed the petitioner herein as the court receiver. Concealing substantial facts and in an attempt to destroy the entire estate, the 10^th respondent filed Ext.P1 writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.32523 of 2014 before this Court, seeking permission to sell a portion of the estate having an extent of 5 acres. This Court was duped in the said attempt, and in fact, the 3^rd respondent is also a party to the entire fraud. Ext.P12 is the judgment dated 04.02.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.32523 of 2014. The petitioner moved an application seeking review, which was entertained, and clarification directions were issued. The petitioner complained before the 2^nd respondent that mutation is sought to be effected as Poku Varavu proceedings are continued by the 3^rd respondent Tahsildar. Immediately, an interdicting order is passed by the District Collector, but still the 3^rd respondent effected mutation as evident by Exts.P15 and 16 possession certificate dated 02.05.2015 and tax receipt of the same date. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.16087 of 2015, challenging the proceedings, and ultimately, this Court directed the petitioner to approach the 2^nd respondent to file an appeal under the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act , 1961. Accordingly, the petitioner filed Ext.P20 statutory appeal under Section 9 of the , 1961, before the 2^nd respondent. Now, the 2^nd respondent has passed Ext.P23 order dated 20.10.2017 against the petitioner. Hence, seeking to set aside the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. A counter-affidavit dated 14.10.2024 is filed by the 2^nd respondent opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition. Similarly, the 10^th and 11^th respondents also filed a counter affidavit dated 20.02.2025 opposing the reliefs sought in the writ petition, producing therewith Exts.R10(a) to R10(o) documents.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 10 and 11 and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the 10^th respondent are brothers. The 10^th respondent obtained Ext.P12 judgment dated 04.02.2015 in W.P.(C)No.32523 of 2014, without making the petitioner a party to that writ petition. It was in pursuance of the direction in Ext.P12 judgment, Ext.P23 order under challenge in this writ petition was ultimately passed by the 2^nd respondent. The 10^th respondent obtained Ext.P12 judgment by suppressing material facts.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents

10 and 11 submitted that after Ext.P12 judgment, the petitioner filed a review petition and hence the petitioner cannot contend against Ext.P12 judgment at present.

7. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that against Ext.P23 order, there is a statutory remedy provided under Section 11 of the Kerala Land Tax Act , 1961. Without availing the said remedy the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

8. We have carefully perused the impugned Ext.P23 order dated 20.10.2017, passed by the 2^nd respondent District Collector, Idukki, in Ext.P19 appeal da