The court established the need for property mutation as a prerequisite for the acceptance of land tax payments by government authorities.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner has filed this writ petition being allegedly aggrieved by the illegal action on the part of the respondents by not accepting the land tax for the properties of the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 sale deed, and Ext.P2 tax receipt for the earlier period. According to the petitioner, there were some revenue recovery proceedings against the husband of the petitioner, and that is the reason why the tax is not accepted from the petitioner. However, it is contended that by virtue of the judgments delivered by this Court in 'Joseph Kurian v. Village Officer' [2010 (3) KLT 251] and 'Hazeena v. Tahsildar' [2010 (3) KLT 278] mere attachment, pendency of revenue recovery proceedings, or any legal action will not stand in the way of the revenue authorities from collecting the tax. According to the petitioner, since the petitioner is having title over the property, the respondents are duty bound to collect tax from the petitioner. These are the background facts persuaded the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this W.P.(C) No.26842 of 2010 2 writ petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties.

3. From Ext.P2 tax receipt dated 02.07.2005, it is clear that petitioner has remitted tax of the property. But the tax was not received by the statutory authority in the status of the petitioner as pattadar. Therefore, it is obvious and clear that petitioner has not filed necessary application before the statutory authority under the Transfer of Registry Rules seeking to effect mutation of the property. If and when the mutation is effected by the statutory authority, the acceptance of tax is an automatic process. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to pursue the remedy under the Transfer of Registry Rules and seek mutation of the property. Petitioner has no case that petitioner has filed any application seeking mutation of the property.

4. Therefore, if the petitioner makes any application for mutation before the 1st respondent, the same shall be considered in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other W.P.(C) No.26842 of 2010 3 interested or affected persons, and attain a finality to the same at the earliest. Needless to say, if the mutation of the property is effected in favour of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent shall receive land tax from the petitioner as pattadar of the property.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.