Tax payment should not be withheld due to claims without a civil dispute; different property surveys justify tax acceptance.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners are aggreived by Exts.P4 and P5 communications issued by the Tahsildar and Village Officer respectively, refusing to accept tax in respect of their property.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned senior Government Pleader on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 3 and also the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the findings in Exts.P4 and P5 to the effect that the petitioners and the 4^th respondent are claiming title over the same property is baseless. The petitioner’s property is comprised in old survey no.612 and re-survey no.655/9; whereas, the 4^th respondent’s property is comprised in old survey nos. 617, 616 etc. and re-survey no. 657/5. Both in respect of the old Survey number and re-survey number, the properties differ, wherefore, the finding in Ext.P4 that the property is one and the same is grossly illegal. The stand reflected in Ext.P5 that the petitioners can remit tax only after the matter is decided by a Civil Court, is also illegal, inasmuch as nobody has approached the Civil Court and there exists no civil dispute as on date. The petitioners seek Exts.P4 and P5 to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the 4^th respondent would submit that, though no civil dispute, as such, is pending, the 4^th respondent has raised a claim in the property, in respect of which tax is sought to be remitted by the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the question as to who is entitled to pay land tax has to be adjudicated by the Tahsildar, in terms of the Kerala Land Tax Act. The acceptance of tax from the petitioners or the 4^th respondent, as the case may be, can only be after such adjudication. Learned counsel would then submit that Ext.R4(a) and Ext.R4(b) are two documents of the year 1986 and 1987 respectively, which is much prior in point of time, when compared with the petitioners’ title deed of the year 2014, which betters 4^th respondent’s claim over that of the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the present re-survey number of the 4^th respondent’s property and the petitioners’ property is 655/9. Ext.R4(c) is a land tax receipt evidencing payment of tax by the 4^th respondent. On such premise, the 4^th respondent seeks the writ petition to be dismissed.

5. Learned senior Government Pleader would submit that, on perusal of the records, the survey numbers of the properties of the petitioners and the 4^th respondent differ. A perusal of the document produced along with the reply affidavit of the petitioners - a reply given under the Right to Information Act, 2005- would show that the re-survey numbers of the 4^th respondent is 657/1, 657/4, 657/5; whereas, the re- survey number of the petitioners is 655/9. Learned senior Government Pleader would point out that, the reply under the Right to Information Act, 2005, was issued by the competent Revenue officials. According to the learned senior Government Pleader, Exts.P4 and P5 may require reconsideration.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also point out that Ext.P6 is a land tax receipt evidencing payment by the 4^th respondent, wherein the re-survey number of the property has been shown as 657/1, 4 and 5; and not 655/9, as contended by the 4^th respondent in his counter affidavit.

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court is of the opinion that the payment of land tax sought for by the petitioners cannot be stalled only for reason of an objection being posed by the 4^th respondent. Primafacie, as per the data available before this Court, it appears that, the properties are comprised in different survey number