IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 30115 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- MUHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED 50, S/O. THENGIL MUHAMMED, VILAYUR VILLAGE, PULASSERY AMSOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILAYUR VILLAGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 4. MATHEW, S/O. THOMAS, MUNDUMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, AYIROOR, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.MANU R4 BY ADV. MR.K.JAJU BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.30115/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED BEARING NO.1767/77 OF THE VILAYUR S.R.O. DTD. 27.5.77. P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 10.9.08. P3:- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF PATHUMMAKUTTYUMMA DTD. 31.1.08. P4:- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF PATHUMMAKUTTYUMMA DTD. 31.1.08. P5:- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF PATHUMMAKUTTYUMMA DTD. 3.1.08. P6:- COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD. 19.8.08. P7:- COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DTD. 29.5.08. P8:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 20.8.08. P9:- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. 76/95 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, OTTAPPALAM DTD. 31.1.95. R4(a):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 2.2.07 IN WPC. NO.2760/07 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.30115 of 2008-I = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of September, 2009. JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner and the fourth respondent have litigations between them relating to the title to an item of property. The identity of the property is also stated to be in dispute. According to the petitioner, he and the other heirs of late Muhammed had been paying basic tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. He says that the authorities are refusing to receive tax. The tax receipts produced are pressed into service. 2.Per contra, the contesting fourth respondent states that the objections by the fourth respondent and others are pending as against any proposal to transfer the thandaper account into the name of the petitioner or any other person. Obviously, therefore, there are disputes which WPC30115/08 -: 2 :- could fall for adjudication in terms of the Transfer of Registry Rules. But, as already noticed, the suit on title, including the question as to the identity of the property, is pending consideration before the competent civil court. Any question of tenancy in terms of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is a matter that would go to be cared for in terms of that statute by way of reference to the Land Tribunal. Ultimately, when the trial court gives its verdict on the title suit, the result of that litigation will have an overriding effect on whatever entries made in the Basic Tax Register even if proceedings under the Transfer of Registry Rules are concluded by the statutory authorities. This is, pithily, the law. Therefore, taking the pendency of the suit and different proceedings and objections into consideration, it is ordered that the revenue authorities need not wait to collect the tax that is due to the Exchequer, but would collect it by WPC30115/08 -: 3 :- issuing receipt by showing the thandaper account and the name of the thandaper holder as available in the Basic Tax Register and also by showing the name of the person who has paid the tax. Though the recording of the name of the payee in the receipt would not be decisive for any purpose, the object of this procedure is to ensure that the tax due to the State comes and the parties can preserve all their rights for litigation and enjoy the fruits in terms of the declarations of the civil court. Let the revenue authorities act in terms of what is stated above. The writ petition is ordered accordingly without prejudice to the contentions of the parties. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/220909