The petitioner claims title as referable under

Exts.P5 to P9. This was the subject matter of the

civil suit and the Receiver appointed also handed over

possession to the petitioner. The first respondent-

Village Officer himself was the Receiver.

2. The present dispute is in regard to the

acceptance of basic tax. As seen from the proceedings

of the Additional Tahsildar, Vadakara produced as

Ext.P13 dated 30.10.2014, it was decided to accept the

tax after hearing the petitioner as well as correcting

resurvey records. Since there was no follow-up

proceedings, the petitioner approached this Court.

3. Along with the counter affidavit filed by the

second respondent, it is stated that by Ext.R2(a), the

Tahsildar had rejected the request. It is apparent

that the decision was taken without notice to the

petitioner. Further, in the light of the fact that the

petitioner was paying basic tax as evident from

Exts.P1 to P3 and the petitioner's title is fortified

by Exts.P5 to P9 and also in the light of the fact

that the Village Officer had already handed over

possession, the Tahsildar could not have passed such

WP(C).No. 8949/2016 3

an order