IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 15878 of 2010(H) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- KAZHAMBUKARA SIVAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.ONAKKAN, NENMENI AMSOM, NENMENI P.O., SULTAN BATHERRY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.J.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR WAYANAD DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KALPETTA. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, SULTAN BATHERRY TALUK, SULTAN BATHERRY P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NENMENI VILLAGE, NENMENI P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. 4. CHAPPUTTY, S/O.KAKKU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, KAZHAMBUKARA VEEDU, CHULLIYODE POST, NENMANI VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERRY, WAYANAD. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P. NARAYANAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 15878 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the successor in interest of late Kazhambukara Bomman. Certain properties in respect of which allegedly Patta was issued to the said Bomman, devolved by succession on the petitioner. Petitioner's present grievance is that in respect of that property, in spite of the petitioner and other legal heirs producing the patta in favour of the said Bomman, land tax is not being received from them. Petitioner's claim for receiving tax from the legal heirs of Bomman was directed to be considered as per judgment in W.P.(C) No.29707/2007, pursuant to which Ext.P4 order has been passed by the 2nd respondent holding that presently the registry in respect of the land stands in favour of the 4th respondent and therefore tax cannot be accepted from the petitioner. Petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: i) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction to quash exhibit-P4 issued by the 2nd respondent. ii) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to call for all the records related to the issuance of ext-P4 proceedings to help in deciding the petition. W.P.(C)No. 15878 of 2010 -2- iii) such other reliefs and cost as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the nature and course of the proceedings. 2. As is clear from Ext.P4 order, presently the registry stands in the name of the 4th respondent in respect of the property. Therefore if that is actually a mistake, unless that mistake is got corrected by resorting to appropriate proceedings, the Tahsildar could not have validly decided to accept tax from the petitioner or the legal heirs of late Bomman. As such the petitioner's remedy lies in either filing a suit for declaration of title or to file an appeal against the order granting transfer of registry in favour of the 4th respondent. Admittedly the petitioner has filed a suit in respect thereof which is pending. Therefore without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek his remedies appropriately either in the suit or by filing appeal under the Transfer of Registry Rules, this writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/