IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14237 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- PALERI THAIVALAPIL NARAYANAN, S/O. KALLIYANI, AGED 75 YEARS, ERAMAM AMSOM DESOM, P.O. ERAMAM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 3. THAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 14237 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 26th May , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this court with the following prayers: “i. writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to accept Basic Tax from the petitioner for the landed property covered by Ext.P1 Title Deed in Sy.No.70/IA3 of Eramam Village of Taliparamba Taluk; ii. such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper ion the facts and circumstances of the case .” 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the refusal on the part of the concerned respondent to accept the basic tax in respect of the property covered by Exts.P1 and P2, is contrary to relevant provisions of law and also the mandate given as per Ext. P6 in W.P.(C) No.257892 of 2008. W.P.(C) No. 14237 OF 2011 2 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to take a deviation from the course pursued earlier while passing Ext. P6 judgment. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the concerned respondent to accept the basic tax in respect of the property in question. It is also made clear that acceptance of the basic tax will not, by itself, either confer any right on the petitioner or enlarge the same in any manner. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk