IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/1ST PHALGUNA, 1936

WP(C).No. 3719 of 2015 (L)

---------------------------

PETITIONER :

---------------------

UMMUBARKETH, AGED 59 YEARS

W/O.MUHAMMED, KARIMBANAKKAL HOUSE, AKODE

VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN

SRI.V.VENUGOPAL

RESPONDENT(S) :

----------------------------

1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

VAZHAKKAD- 673 640,

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

2. THE TAHSILDAR,

KONDOTTY TALUK OFFICE,

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 001

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

ON 20-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

Mn

...2/-

WP(C).No. 3719 of 2015 (L)

--------------------------------------

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

-------------------------------------

EXT. P1:

A TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.135 OF 2006 DATED

20.01.2006.

EXT. P2:

A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 22.04.2008.

EXT. P2(a):

A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 15.03.2008.

EXT. P2(b):

A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.04.2010.

EXT. P3:

A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE

PETITTIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

EXT. P4:

A TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS.NO. 111 OF 2006 OF

SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, MANJERI DATED 11.03.2014.

EXT. P5:

A TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS.NO. 51 OF 2006 OF

SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, MANJERI.

EXT. P6:

A TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN OS.NO 25 OF 2010 OF

SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, MANJERI DATED 11.03.2014.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

--------------------------------------------------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Mn

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

W.P.(C) No. 3719 of 2015

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dated, this the 20^th day of February, 2015

JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioner is mainly with regard to the non-

acceptance of tax by the Revenue authorities in respect of the land

covered by Ext. P1 sale deed. It is stated that tax was being

accepted by the revenue authorities, as borne by Ext. P2 series. But

subsequently it came to be refused to be accepted, referring to

pendency of civil suit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that pendency of Civil case is not a bar for accepting the land tax. It

is also pointed out that civil suit came to be disposed of in favour of

the petitioner and that though RFA No. 346 of 2014 is pending before

this Court, no interim order of injunction or any such order restraining

the authority to accept tax has been passed.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

3. The law has been declared by this Court in Sudan Vs. State

of Kerala [2013 (4) KLT 563], that pendency of civil suit can never

be a bar with regard to the acceptance of land tax, unless specifically

restrained from accepting the tax by virtue of any order passed by

the Court. Since no restrictive order was passed by this Court or any

W.P.(C) No. 3719 of 2015

: 2 :

other Court, there is no rationale on the part of the respondent in

refusing to accept the land tax. There is also no dispute as to the

sequence of events, including the conveyance of the property as

borne by Exts. P1 to P3 sale deeds and satisfaction of tax till 2010,

as borne by Ext. P2 series receipts.

In the said circumstances, the first respondent is directed to

accept land tax in respect of the property covered by Ext. P1 as

and when the same is tendered. It is made clear that satisfaction

of tax itself does not confer any right upon the petitioner, which

shall be subject to the result of civil litigation stated as pending.

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with

copy o