IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 30889 of 2011(I) --------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- BAIJU, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 30 YEARS, PANACKAL HOUSE, VELIYATHU NADU MARA, U.C.COLLEGE.P.O., ALUVA-2. BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (REVENUE), GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-1. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, ALUVA WEST VILLAGE, ALUVA-683 801. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 30889/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY SALE DEED NO.6219/2005 EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 10/11/2005. P2: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 25/05/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 30889 of 2011 I ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner claims to be the owner of 1.5 Ares of land in survey No.131/14 of Aluva West village. Ext.P1 is the title deed. According to the petitioner, on that basis, he has been paying tax in respect of the property also and Ext.P2 is the receipt evidencing payment of tax for the year 2010. His grievance is that tax is not accepted by the respondents for the reason that revenue recovery proceedings are pending against the property. Petitioner submits that even in respect of the said proceedings he has already filed an appeal before the Government and the matter is pending. 2. Thus, the case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of a property which is also mutated in his name. If that be so, petitioner is entitled to pay tax in respect of the property also. The only question is whether the pendency of W.P.(C) No.30889/2011 : 2 : revenue recovery proceedings should prevent the petitioner from paying tax that are due. This position has already been clarified by this Court in the judgment in Thulasibhai Vs. State of Kerala [2010 (4) KLT 215] that the pendency of revenue recovery proceedings should not prevent acceptance of tax in respect of the property. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of, directing that even in spite of the pendency of the revenue recovery proceedings, it will be open to the petitioner to pay tax in respect of his property and if payment is made, the third respondent shall accept the same. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/30/11 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge