IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32322 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. HAMSA, S/O.MOIDUTTY HAJI,AGED 68 YEARS, VARAMANGALATH HOUSE, ONGALLUR P.O, PATTAMBI,OTTAPALAM TALUK 2. AYISHA, W/O. HAMSA,DO.DO. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.SUMODH MADHAVAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM PIN 695 001 2. OTTAPALAM TALUK TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPALAM PIN 679 101 3. VILLAGE OFFICER,SHORNUR, VILLAGE OFFICE,SHORNUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK PIN 679 121 4. TALUK LAND BOARD, OTTAPALAM REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN,TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPALAM PIN 679 101 5. THE STATE LAND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY PIN 695 001 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.32322/11 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 21/6/11 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 21/6/11,FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10-08-2011,ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18-09-2007 IN WPC 15779 OF 2007,PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 19-04-06 EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 17-11-98 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 32322 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 6th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners claim to be in ownership and possession of 1.35 acres of land in Sy.No.23/1 and 24/- in Shornur-1 Village. Their grievance is regarding the refusal of the respondents to accept basic tax on the allegation that proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act are pending before the Land Tribunal/Taluk Land Board. It is the specific case of the petitioners that there is no such proceedings pending and that therefore the refusal to accept basic tax is illegal. 2. If as stated by the petitioners, proceedings are not pending, there is no reason why basic tax shall not be accepted. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that on the production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition, 3rd respondent will verify the claim of the petitioners and if what is asserted is factually correct, tax should be accepted. Petitioners to produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp