IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 27837 of 2007(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- GEETHA, W/O.RAJAN, AYYANCHIRA HOUSE, THOTTIPPAL VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, THOTTIPPAL. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.27837/2007 L APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DTD. 11/08/2000 SHOWING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DTD.2/07/02 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 6/08/07 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 20/08/07. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD. 2/07/2002 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 27837 OF 2007 L = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Refusal of the respondent to accept basic tax in respect of the property covered by Ext. P1 has led the petitioner to file this writ petition. Petitioner submits that under Ext. P1, petitioner and others own 58 cents of land. Ext. P2 possession certificate is referred to contend that the extent of land shown there is also 58 cents. It is also stated by the petitioner that the land has been mutated in their favour and Ext. P5 is referred to contend that tax in respect of the 58 cents was being accepted in the past. 2. Despite of this petitioner complains that under Ext. P4 it was informed that a portion of the land is not in their possession and therefore tax cannot be accepted for 35 cents out of the property covered by Ext. P1. 3. In my view, since the whole 58 cents is covered by Ext. P1 document which has been mutated and tax accepted in the past, W.P.(C) No. 27837 OF 2007 -2- irrespective of the dispute on possession, tax needs to be accepted from the petitioner. I clarify that such acceptance will not confer any additional right on the property, the possession of which is under dispute. Making it clear that acceptance of tax is pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the 2nd respondent shall accept the basic tax from the petitioner on production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-