IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 24908 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- P.M.UMMARKUTTY, S/O.ABDUL KAREEM AGED 53 YEARS, PUTHUPARAMBIL HOUSE VADATTUPARA PO, KOTHAMANGALAM (MEERANCITY) BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE, KUTTAMPUZHA KOTHAMANGALAM. 5. MINI JOY, KAPPADAKYAMATTATHIL HOUSE THRIKKARIYOOR PO, AYAKKADU, KOTHAMANGALAM. ADV. SRI.SUBAL J.PAUL FOR R5 SMT.SHEEBA SUBAL FOR R5 SRI.SEBASTIAN PAUL FOR R5 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.DILEEP MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.24908/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DEED NO.3307/2003 DT 18.6.03 OF KOTHAMANGALAM SRO. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 2.5.2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, THE IDAMALAYAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.1178, KOTHAMANGALAM. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27.7.2010 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 3.8.2010 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ATTACHMETN SCHEDULE IN I.A.NO.546/2007 IN O.P.NO.1267/2005 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 24908 OF 2010 (k) ===================== Dated this the 8th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he is the owner in possession of 40.47 ares of land in Sy.No.2/6 of Kuttampuzha village. The property has been mutated in his name. According to him, when he approached the 4th respondent for payment of tax, it was refused to be accepted. It is thereupon the writ petition is filed. The stand of the respondents is that as per order in EP No.2/07 in OP No.1257/05 of the Family Court, Ernakulam, there is an attachment over the property in question and that it is therefore that the tax was not accepted. 2. In my view, the fact that an attachment has been effected by a Court is no reason to decline acceptance of tax so long as the property has been mutated in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner remains its owner. In that view, the refusal of the 4th respondent to accept tax from the petitioner cannot be justified. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the WPC No. 24908/10 :2 : 3rd respondent will accept tax in respect of the aforesaid property if the petitioner tenders the same. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp