IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 15TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3663 of 2011(G) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. KUTTIPARAMBIL ENIKUTTY HAJI, 73 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, ANANTHAVOOR P.O., ANANTHAVOOR AMSOM, VALIYAPARAPPUR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THEKKARAKATH FATHIMAKUTTY, AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.KUTTIPARAMBIL ENIKUTTY HAJI, ANANTHAVOOR AMSOM, VALIYAPARAPPUR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY, SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN, SRI.V.R.REKESH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. VILLAGE OFFICER, ANANDAVOOR VILLAGE OFFICE – 676 301. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUR TALUK, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT – 676 101. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM – 676 505. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 3663 of 2011 G ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 4th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioners, they are the present owners of 35.08 cents of property comprised in R.S.No.153/4A of Ananthavur village. 2. It is stated that when tax was refused to be accepted, their predecessor-in-interest, had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.35623/2008. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment. In that judgment, this Court held as follows:- “ The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that land tax could not be accepted from the petitioners, since, on further verification, it was found that part of the property in question comprises of Government land. I am of opinion that this dispute cannot be resolved in a writ petition, since that dispute can be resolved only by taking evidence. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a W.P.(C) No.3663/2011 : 2 : direction to the first respondent to accept land tax from the petitioners without prejudice to the contentions of the respondents that part of the property comprises of Government land. I further direct the second respondent to take appropriate steps in respect of any part of the property, which is actually Government land, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.” 3. It is stated that in pursuance of the directions in the judgment, though tax was accepted, nothing further was done to identify the alleged Government property in the property in question. It was subsequent to the judgment, by Ext.P1, petitioners purchased the property and as on the previous occasion, tax was refused to be accepted from the petitioners also. Though Exts.P5 and P6 notices were issued to respondents 1 and 2, it also did not evoke any response. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition is filed. 4. Going by the averments in the writ petition, in view W.P.(C) No.3663/2011 : 3 : of Ext.P1 sale deed, petitioners are the present owners of the property. If that be so, there is no reason why tax shall not be accepted from them. 5. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition, directing that on the production of a copy of this judgment, tax in respect of the property will be accepted from the petitioners. It is further clarified that it will be open to the respondents to proceed against the property in question, taking advantage of the liberty given by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge