IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 2968 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20099/2007 Dated 02/11/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- NANICHERI VEETTIL GOVINDAN NAIR, NANICHERI HOUSE, KUNNARA, RAMANTHALI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 AND PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VILLAGE OFFICER, RAMANTHALI VILLAGE, KUNNARA, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 4. STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. KASI MANGALATH ILLATH NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O.VISHNU NAMBOOTHIRI, SANTHI NILAYAM, THIRUVANGAD, THALASSERY-3. R1 TO R4 BY G.P. SRI.V.K.SHAMSUDEEN ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS FOR R5 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2009, THE COURT ON 24/02/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.2968 of 2007 .................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge whereunder the Single Judge directed the Tahsildar to receive land tax pertaining to disputed property from the 5th respondent in the Writ Appeal who was the petitioner in the W.P.(C). While the case of the appellant is that he is the owner in possession of the disputed land covered by purchase certificate issued to him under the Land Reforms Act, 1977, the case of the 5th respondent appears to be that the property is still in his name. Going by the judgment of the learned Single Judge it is clear that tax was directed to be received from the petitioner in the W.P. only because title deed of the property was in his name. Appellant was given interim order in the suit filed before the Civil Court whereunder the injunction application of the 5th respondent herein was dismissed. We find force in the contention of the appellant that the learned Single Judge should not have ordered collection of land 2 tax from the 5th respondent when he does not have claim that he is in possession of the land. In any case we do not think the payment of tax during pendency of the suit under orders of this court will advance the case of either party. We make it clear that the suit should be decided on it's own merits and without considering orders of this court passed in the Writ Petition with regard to payment of tax. Since appellant is found to be in possession by the civil court, we modify the judgment by directing the Tahsildar to receive tax pertaining to the property as a deposit from both the parties i.e. from the appellant and from the 5th respondent, until final judgment is issued in the Suit and thereafter adjust it towards tax based on judgment and refund the deposit to the other party. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms