IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WA.No. 1838 of 2011() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.26211/2011 Dated 13/10/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): --------------------- K.M.CHANDEEVI, D/O K.P MOIDEEN, HOUSE NO.38/976, PATTANI STREET, PALAKKAD-14. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD-678 001. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, YAKKARA VILLAGE, PALAKKAD-678 001. BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag.C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 1838 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag.C.J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The appellant is before us, aggrieved by the judgment dated 13.10.2011, wherein the learned Single Judge declined to quash Exhibit P8 request of the appellant/petitioner for acceptance of tax in his name in respect of the property in question. It is not in dispute that the appellant claims right, interest and title to a property measuring 18 cents situated in Sy.Nos.1060/1A and 1061/1A of Yakkara Village. According to the admission of the appellant, this property originally belonged to the appellant's uncle, i.e., father's brother and the same came to be gifted to his father under Exhibit P1, which, in turn, came to be gifted to the appellant as per Exhibit P4, said to have been executed in 1980. According to the appellant, he approached the respondent-authorities not only for acceptance of property tax, WA.1838/11 2 but also change of mutation in her name. The learned Single Judge, after referring to the relevant documents, relied upon by the appellant, held that in the absence of any pleading in the Writ Petition that the property was mutated in her name on the basis of Exhibit P4, the respondents were justified in refusing acceptance of tax. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before us. 3. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the content of Exhibit P5 clearly indicates what exactly he sought from the second respondent Tahsildar, i.e., not only to permit him to remit land tax of the property, but also change the mutation of the property in question. Apparently, the property never came to be mutated in the name of the father of the appellant based on a gift deed said to have been executed by the uncle of the appellant in favour of her father in the year 1946. The property continued to remain in the name of her father's brother till she approached the respondent authority. Even other wise what was requested at Exhibit P5 is to permit her to remit the land tax of the property in her name. In other words, it means, she sought for issuance of a receipt in the name of the appellant and nothing else. In that view of the matter, it would not lie in the mouth of WA.1838/11 3 the appellant to say, based on the unregistered gift deed, the respondent authority is refusing to mutate the property in her name. Exhibit P8 reads as under: “As per Reference No.2 your brother Said Mohammed has appeared in the village office with all documents. According to document No.1418/1943 Palghat Taluk, Yakara village, Ward 5, block 21, survey No.1060/1A 1063 the land is situated in the name of diseased K.P.Kunjammoo. On enquiry five children of him are still alive (one male and Four females) in the circumstances it is impossible to accept land tax in the name of Smt.K.M.Chandeevi as required by your brother Sri.Said Mohammed. This is for your information.” 4. From reading of Exhibit P8 as stated above, so far as deceased K.P.Kunjammoo, five children are alive. Therefore, they refused to accept the tax. The only course open to the appellant now is to make a proper application seeking for change of mutation in the name of her father first and then change the mutation in the name of the appellant as per the 1946 document and also 1980 document respectively, in accordance with the procedure contemplated. However, the respondent authorities cannot go into the dispute pertaining to the title as it is the jurisdiction of a civil court to decide such dispute. WA.1838/11 4 In that view of the matter, we dispose of the appeal with a direction to the appellant to approach the same authorities, in accordance with law for change of mutation as indicated above. Sd/- MANJULA CHELLUR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs /true copy/ PS TO JUDGE