Pending court case is not a bar for land tax payment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
WEDNESDAY,THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 26TH POUSHA, 1940
WP(C).No. 1263 of 2019
PETITIONER:
K.B.VIJAYAN
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O BHASKARAN, CHINNARKAVALA, CHINNAR KARA, ELAPPARA
VILLAGE, PEERUMEDU TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685501.
BY ADV. SRI.E.A.BIJUMON
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI. PIN-685501.
3 THE TAHASILDAR
PEERUMEDU P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT. PIN-685501.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
ELAPPARA VILLAGE OFFICE, ELAPPARA P.O, IDUKKI
DISTRICT. PIN-685501.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.A.C.VIDHYA,GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.01.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).Nos. 1270& 1372 of 2019 THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).Nos. 1263, 1270 & 1372 of 2019
-:2:-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) Nos.1263, 1270 & 1372 of 2019
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 16th
day of January, 2019
J U D G M E N T
The prayers in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1263 of 2019 are as follows:
“i) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or
order directing the 4th
respondent to accept the property
land tax in Sy.No. 1006/6 of Elappara Village in
Peerumedu Taluk.
ii) any other appropriate writ, order or direction as the
Hon'ble Court may pleased to grant in the circumstances
of the case.”
2. The prayers in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1270 of 2019 are as
follows:
land tax in Sy.No. 1006/2 of Elappara Village in
Peerumedu Taluk.
of the case.”
3. The prayers in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1372 of 2019 are as
follows:
land tax in Sy.No. 1019 of Elappara Village in Peerumedu
Taluk.

WP(C).Nos. 1263, 1270 & 1372 of 2019
-:3:-
of the case.”
4. Heard Sri. E.A. Bijumon, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in these three cases and Smt. A.C.Vidhya, the learned
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
5. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner having
title, possession and enjoyment of the respective properties covered by
Ext.P-2 and the petitioner had submitted applications as per Ext.P-1
produced in these three cases on 10.12.2018 before the 4th
respondent-
Village Officer for accepting of basic land tax in respect of the above said
properties concerned. It is stated that the 4th
respondent has taken the
adamant stand that he will not even act upon the said application, on the
ground that some civil case is pending in the said property. Ext.P-2 is the
encumbrance certificate issued by the Sub Registrar concerned in respect
of the aforesaid properties concerned. On account of the pendency of a
civil suit (O.S. No.75 of 2017) on the file of the Sub Court, Kattappana, the
petitioner would assert that no orders had been passed by the Civil Court in
that O.S. or in any other civil proceedings, whereby the revenue officials
concerned have been interdicted from accepting basic land tax in respect of
the properties concerned. It is stated that in a similar case, the petitioner
herein was constrained to approach this Court as the very same 4th

WP(C).Nos. 1263, 1270 & 1372 of 2019
-:4:-
respondent-Village Officer had refused to accept basic land tax in respect of
another property citing the pendency of a civil suit and this Court as per
judgment dated 15.10.2018 in W.P.(C) No.30997/2018 had held that the
said stand of the 4th
respondent-Village Officer is illegal and had directed
him to immediately accept the basic land tax of the properties concerned
and it is only thereafter the 4th
respondent was willing to accept basic land
tax, in respect of the said property from the petitioner. Further, even if the
said property thereafter the petitioner had submitted application for grant
of possession certificate and non-attachment certificate for that property,
which was also being refused by the very same 4th
respondent -Village
Officer and this Court as per judgment dated 16.01.2019 in W.P.(C)
No.1305 of 2019 had directed the 4th
respondent-Village Officer to
immediately issue the possession certificate and non-attachment certificate
of the said property, etc. It appears that the apprehension of the petitioner
is that, as he had previously approached this Court in respect of different
property by filing W.P.(C) No.30997/2018, in which this Court had
intervened in his favour, the 4th
respondent would be taking a prejudiced
attitude. Be that as it may, it is only to be held that mere pendency of a civil
suit can by no stretch of imagination, be the legal justification for a
competent revenue official like the 4th
respondent, so as to refuse

WP(C).Nos. 1263, 1270 & 1372 of 2019
-:5:-
acceptance of the basic land tax. The question in that regard, has no longer
res integra and does not require any citation of the judicial authority in
that regard and it has been so held in catena of rulings of various High
Courts and the Apex Court. However, if the 4th
respondent-Village Officer
has any doubt in that regard, despite the previous judgment rendered by
this Court on 15.10.2018 in W.P.(C) No.30997/2018, it is only to be
observed that in very many judgments as in Tulasibhai v. State of
Kerala[2010(4) KLT 215], it has been held by this Court that pendency of
civil suit, revenue recovery proceedings, attachment proceeding etc. cannot
be the legal basis for competent revenue official like Tahasilar and Village
Officer, to refuse to accept basic land tax from the land holder concerned,
as there are no provisions in the Transfer of Registry Rules and Kerala
Land Tax Rules, which prohibits the competent revenue officials concerned
for accepting of basic land tax on account of mere pendency of such
proceedings. The said provision has also been reiterated in the subsequent
judgment of this Court as in Nevin Raju v. S. Basheer & Ors.[2015 (3)
KLJ 197]. Accordingly, it is only to be ordered and declared that the stand
of the 4th
respondent-Village Officer that he will not accept basic land tax in
respect of the property covered by Exts.P-1 and P-2 on account of pendency
of O.S.No.75 of 2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Kattappana or any other

WP(C).Nos. 1263, 1270 & 1372 of 2019
-:6:-
civil proceedings or revenue recovery proceedings or attachment
proceedings, etc. would be is nothing; but illegal, ultra vires and would also
amount to abdication of the statutory duties and responsibilities under the
Kerala Land Tax Act and the Kerala Land Tax Rules, which mandates that
competent revenue official like the 4th
respondent is bound to collect land
tax from the land holder concerned as understood in Section 3(3) of the
Kerala Land Tax Act. This is the specific mandate of the legislature as
made in Section 5(2) read with Section 3(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act,
1972. As already observed by this Court in very many cases of this nature,
the Kerala Land Tax Act and the Kerala Land Tax Rules appears to be the
only branch of taxation law, wherein the tax payers are running after the
tax collectors to pay the tax dues, and the tax collectors (competent revenue
officials) in many a case are taking the adamant stand in delaying or
refusing to accept the basic land tax on irrelevant and grounds which are
not germane for such refusal. This leads to the inevitable result that
aggrieved parties are forced to litigate before this Court in matters which
should have been routinely resolved by the competent revenue officials
concerned.
6. Even though the Transfer of Registry Rules, which is a non-
statutory rule, is subservient to the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act

WP(C).Nos. 1263, 1270 & 1372 of 2019
-:7:-
and the Kerala Land Tax Rules, more so in view of the mandate of Section 4
of the said Act, still for the sake of completion of procedural formalities , it
will be only in the fitness of things that the petitioner makes separate
applications for grant of mutation in respect of the separate properties
covered in these three petitions, in case of mutation has not so far been
effected. Irrespective of that, it is ordered that the 4th
respondent-Village
Officer may immediately take up the request made by the petitioner in
Ext.P-1 application for acceptance of basic tax and will afford a reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and will consider the said
request and grant it, if it is otherwise in order, within three weeks from the
date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.
7. It is also ordered that in case, the properties have not been
mutated in the name of the petitioner, then the said application for
mutation should also be considered, after due notice to the petitioner and
decision thereon will be taken without much delay. Further, it is also
ordered in order to avoid unnecessary future litigative proceedings that in
case, the petitioner makes formal application for grant of possession
certificate, location sketch, non-attachment certificate, etc. the said
requests will also be considered and will be granted, if it is otherwise in
order. It is hoped and expected that the 4th
respondent will not

WP(C).Nos. 1263, 1270 & 1372 of 2019
-:8:-
unnecessarily make the petitioner to run from pillar to post and this Court
expects that a competent and responsible revenue official like the 4th
respondent would rise up to the occasion, fully keeping in mind, the heavy
responsibilities placed on his shoulders by the legislature to collect basic
land tax as imposed in Section 5(2) of the Kerala Land Tax Act from “land
holders” as understood in Section 3(3) of the said Act.
With theses observations and directions, these Writ Petitions (Civil)
will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS
JUDGE
DST

WP(C).Nos. 1263, 1270 & 1372 of 2019
-:9:-
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
10.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
DATED 30.11.2018.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL
//True copy//
P.A.To Judge

Pending court case is not a bar for land tax payment

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Pending court case is not a bar for land tax payment

Similaire à Pending court case is not a bar for land tax payment (20)

Plus de Jamesadhikaram land matter consultancy 9447464502

Plus de Jamesadhikaram land matter consultancy 9447464502 (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Pending court case is not a bar for land tax payment