IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 28TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 5022 of 2011(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.KESAVAN, RAJAMALLY, N.T.V.NAGAR, KADAPPAKADA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, YEROOR VILLAGE OFFICE, YEROOR, ANCHAL, KOLLAM-673 307 2. TAHSILDAR, O/O.TAHSILDAR PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM-673 301. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM-673 301. BY SR.G.P.SRI.NARAYANAN .P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.5022 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's father was owner of the property forming the subject matter of this writ petition. On demise of the father, the property devolved upon the petitioner and the brothers and sisters, being the legal heirs of the deceased father and they are enjoying the same to the exclusion of all others. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, when the petitioner and other legal heirs approached the 1st respondent for payment of basic tax in respect of the property, it was not accepted stating some or other lame excuse, which made the petitioner to approach the 3rd respondent. After considering the merits involved, Ext.P1 order was passed by the 3rd respondent on 7.5.2010, addressing the 2nd respondent, making it clear that the tax could be accepted in respect of the properties, if, no prohibitory orders were in existence. A copy of the same was marked to the 1st respondent as well, for taking further steps in this regard. However, in total disregard to the said order, the 1st W.P.(C)No.5022 OF 2011 2 respondent quite strangely issued Ext.P2 'public notice' dated 25.11.2010, inviting objections if any, with regard to the request made by the petitioner and other legal heirs. This made the petitioner to approach this Court for appropriate reliefs. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Going by the contents of Ext.P1, this Court finds that there was absolutely no need, necessity or occasion for the 1st respondent, to have issued Ext.P2 'public notice' . In any view of the matter, the period of fifteen days stipulated in Ext.P2 is already over. Since the property has been devolved upon the petitioner and other legal heirs, on the demise of the father of the petitioner, the application for mutation submitted by the legal heirs has to be considered enabling the parties concerned to satisfy the basic tax as mentioned in Ext.P1 order. 5. In the above circumstances, the 1st respondent is directed to effect the change in the registry and accept the tax from the legal heirs of the deceased original owner. The steps in this regard shall be finalized within 'one week' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a W.P.(C)No.5022 OF 2011 3 copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for taking further steps. The writ petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dmb