The court affirmed that pending civil suits do not prohibit the acceptance of land tax unless explicitly restrained by a court order.

O R D E R

The aforecaptioned Review Petition has been filed seeking to review and recall the impugned judgment dated 4.12.2018 rendered by this Court in W.P.(C.) No.39284 of 2018 filed by the R1 herein (writ petitioner). The review petition has been filed by the 4th respondent in the W.P.(C.).

2. This Court had dispensed with notice to R4 in the W.P.(C.) and had passed the impugned judgment on 4.12.2018 in the above W.P.(C.) No. 39284 of 2018, wherein it has been inter alia ordered that the refusal on the part of the respondents 2 and 3 therein in accepting basic land tax from the writ petitioner merely on the ground of pendency of the regular second appeal or any such other civil proceedings by itself will not amount to any legal bar to accept basic land tax. Accordingly, this Court ordered the competent authority among respondents 2 and 3 in the W.P.(C) more particularly, 3rd respondent therein should forthwith accept basic land tax from the writ petitioner and issue land tax receipt to him immediately on production of a certified copy of this order. So also, it is made clear that in case, the writ petitioner makes any application for possession certificate/location sketch etc, then also the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C.) shall consider and grant the same and cannot refuse the same on the sole ground of pendency of the RSA.

3. Now, the main ground urged by the review petitioner (R4 in the W.P.(C.)) is to the effect that though review petitioner could not succeed in the original suit O.S.No.184/2010 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Kalpetta which was filed by the writ petitioner, in which the review petitioner has been arrayed as the defendant therein, the review petitioner had later filed a first appeal which culminated in Ext.P2 judgment, which is also adverse to the review petitioner. Thereafter, the review petitioner has filed regular second appeal as RSA No.529/2018 which is pending before this Court.

4. It has already been made clear by this Court in para No.4 of the impugned judgment in this W.P.(C.) that it is well settled by various rulings of this Court as inSudan v.State of Kerala [ 2013 (4) KLT 563 ] that mere pendency of the any civil suit cannot be a legal bar in accepting basic land tax unless the same is legally restrained or interdicted by the competent court. Further that, it has also been held in decisions as in Vijayarajan v. Tahsildar [ 2013 (2) KLT SN 93 ] that pendency of civil suit is not a ground for non-acceptance of land tax and that attachment of the property by the revenue recovery officials etc. also result in non- acceptance of land tax and that it has also been held in decisions as in Sawarni v. Inder Kaur and others [ AIR 1996 SC 2823 ] by the Apex Court that data mutation by itself does not create or extinguish the title nor has it any presumptive value on title and it only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land tax to the authorities concerned. The abovesaid legal position is also explicitly incorporated in Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules , 1966 which stipulates that summary enquiry and decision thereon on the issue of mutation is only an arrangement for fiscal purposes and does not affect the legal rights of any person in respect of lands covered by the decisions in transfer of registry cases and that the question of legal rights will always subject to adjudication by Civil Courts and pattas will be revised from time to time in accordance with the judicial decisions.

5. Accordingly, it is made clear that the decision of the competent revenue authorities to accept basic land tax from the writ petitioner or to issue land tax receipt to him or to issue possession certificate/location sketch etc. in respect of the subject property will be subject to the final result in the regular second appeal RSA No.539/2018 now on the file of this Court. It is further made clear that in case the review petitioner could succeed in the said regular second appeal and if the