Tax collection should align with established rights and receipts, with civil disputes resolved in court.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is stated to be the owner of property in Sy.No.205/2-1 of Pulpatta Village in Ernad Taluk, having an extent of 2 hectares, 19 ares and 40 square meters.

2. Heard Sri. K. Rakesh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri. N.B. Sunil Nath, learned Government Pleader for R1 to R3. In spite of service of notice, there is no appearance from the side of the 4^th respondent herein. 3. The petitioner relies on Ext.P1 tax receipt to show that tax was being received from him for the entire extent of the property. However, the 4^th respondent herein, who is none other than the petitioner’s brother, filed an application under the RTI Act before the revenue authorities seeking certain information. Insofar as the information sought from the Village Office was not furnished, he filed an appeal under the Act before the Tahsildar in his capacity as the Appellate Authority.

4. The Appellate Authority, by Ext.P3 dated

27.4.2021, instead of disposing of the appeal either by directing the Village Officer to provide the information or by holding that the information need not be provided, went on to decide the dispute between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent herein and, on that basis, directed rectification of the village records. The order at Ext.P3 was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal and, since that was rejected, the petitioner approached this Court in an earlier round of litigation by filing W.P.(C) No.19158 of 2021.

5. By Ext.P5 judgment dated 5.10.2021, the learned Single Bench of this Court found that the Tahsildar was not acting as the Appellate Authority but was acting as a ‘Settlement Officer’, which could not be sustained. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, directing fresh consideration. On that basis, the order at Ext.P6 was issued by the 2^nd respondent herein, essentially seeking to withdraw the earlier proceedings leading to the issuance of the order at Ext.P3.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner, through Exts.P7 and P8, sought to remit tax for the entire extent covered by Ext.P1 tax receipt. However, by the impugned letter dated 31.8.2022, produced as Ext.P10, the petitioner was directed to file an appropriate application seeking survey, taking note of the dispute between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent herein.

7. On a perusal of the original order at Ext.P3 and the subsequent proceedings at Ext.P6, this Court notices that admittedly the petitioner has been remitting tax for the entire extent of the property as evidenced by Ext.P1 tax receipt. True, there may be disputes between the petitioner and his brother, who is the 4^th respondent herein. However, ultimately noting that such inter se dispute between the brothers requires to be adjudicated by the civil court, the order at Ext.P6 seeks to withdraw the earlier order at Ext.P3 without prejudice to the right of the respective parties to approach the civil court.

8. When that be so, I am of the opinion that tax ought to have been received from the petitioner herein with respect to the entire extent noticed earlier, for which he was remitting tax as evidenced by Ext.P1. Ext.P10, to the extent it directs the petitioner to seek a fresh survey in the face of Ext.P1 tax receipt, cannot be sustained.

In such circumstances, this writ petition stands allowed, setting aside Ext.P10. There will be a direction to the Village Officer concerned to receive tax from the petitioner with respect to the property mentioned in Ext.P1 tax receipt. It is made clear that the aforesaid directions are issued without prejudice to the right of the petitioner or the 4^th respondent herein to approach the civil court, if they have any dispute between them.

Sd/-