The main prayers in the above Writ Petition

(Civil) are as follows:

“i)

issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate

writs, orders of directions directing the 2^nd and 3^rd

respondents to accept land tax for the property

comprised in R.S.No.570/2 (Old Survey No.329/4C2) of

Kunnathidavaka

Village

in

Vythiri

Taluk

notwithstanding the pendency of civil suit;

ii)

Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate

writs, orders of directions directing the 2^nd and 3^rd

respondents to issue relevant certificates

pertaining to property comprised in R.S.No.570/2

(Old Survey No.329/4C2) of Kunnathidavaka Village in

Vythiri Taluk.”

2.

Heard Sri.K.Rakesh, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Smt.A.C.Vidhya, learned Government

Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3. In the

nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this

petition notice to contesting R-4 will stand

dispensed with.

3.

It is stated that the petitioner is having

absolute ownership and possession of landed property

having an extent of 50 cents in Re.Sy.No.570/2 (Old

Sy.No.329/4C2) of Kunnathidavaka Village, Vythiri

Taluk, Wayanad District. It is pointed out that the

-3-

property was duly mutated in favour of the

petitioner and basic land tax was also accepted from

him during the year 2016 as evident from Ext.P-3

land tax receipt dated 1.7.2016. It is also stated

that possession certificate was duly issued to the

petitioner as per Ext.P-4 certificate dated

1.7.2016. The grievance of the petitioner is that,

now the respondents 2 & 3 are refusing to accept

basic land tax from the petitioner on the mere

ground that a Regular Second Appeal arising out of

civil litigation between the petitioner and

4^th respondent is pending before this Court. It is

pointed out that the petitioner had filed Ext.P-1

O.S.No.184/2010 on the file of the Munsiff's Court,

Kalpetta, which was decreed in favour of the

petitioner as per Ext.P-1 decree dated 31.1.2015.

Aggrieved thereby the 4^th respondent had filed an

Appeal Suit as A.S.No.24/2015 on the file of the

Subordinate Judge's Court, Sulthan Bathery, which

was also dismissed as evident from Ext.P-2 appellate

decree dated 6.4.2018 rendered by the said lower

appellate court. Being aggrieved by Exts.P-1 & P-2

-4-

judgments,

the

4^th

respondent

has

filed

R.S.A.No.539/2018 before this Court, which though

pending, has not been admitted so far, it is stated.

It is stated that the the sole ground to refuse

acceptance of basic land tax is the mere pendency of

the R.S.A, which arise out of O.S.No.184/2010 filed

by the petitioner which was confirmed in First

Appeal, A.S.No.24/2015.

4.

That apart, it is by now too well

established

by a catena of rulings as in

Thulasibhai v. State of Kerala, reported in 2010 (4)

KLT 215, that mere initiation of revenue recovery

attachment proceedings against the defaulter, is no

ground to refuse mutation of the property in favour

of the property owner concerned, as the provisions

of the Transfer of Registry of Rules do not prohibit

mutation in such circumstances. So also, it has

been held in rulings as in Sudan v. State of Kerala,

reported in 2013 (4) KLT 563, that pendency of any

civil suit cannot be a legal bar in accepting basic

land tax unless the same is specifically restrained

or interdicted by competent court. It has been held

-5-

by this Court in Vijayarajan v. Tahsildar, reported

in 2013 (2) KLT SN P.93, that pendency of the civil

suit is not a ground for non-acceptance of land tax

and that attachment of the property by the revenue

recovery officials, etc. cannot result in non-

acceptance of land tax, etc. Moreover, it has also

held in series of rulings including that of the

Apex Court in Surney v. Inder Kaur, reported in AIR

1996 SC 2823, that grant of mutation by itself does

not create or extinguish title and 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 c