IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32738 of 2011(N) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- MUHAMMED HANEEFA, S/O.MUHAMMED, CHERAPOLIKKAL, KALPAKANCHERI AMSOM, DESOM, POST KALPAKANCHERI, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.PIN-685 051 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, TIRURANGADI, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.PIN-685 015 3. KANDANATH ALI, S/O.ABDURAHIMANKUTTY HAJI, KANDANATH HOUSE, POST VENNIYUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.PIN-685 111 R1 & R2 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.32738/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1. THE TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2831/09 OF SRO, VILAYOOR DATED 25.11.2009. EXHIBIT-P2. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ENCUMBRANCE DATED 20.03.2011 OF SRO, TIRURANGADI. EXHIBIT-P3. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ENCUMBRANCE DATED 19.3.2009 OF SRO, TIRURANGADI. EXHIBIT-P4. TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ENCUMBRANCE DATED 03.3.2011 OF SRO, TIRURANGADI. EXHIBIT-P5. TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 28.03.2011. EXHIBIT-P6. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.12304/2011 DATED 12.04.2011. EXHIBIT-P7. TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 26/11/2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).32738/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 8th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by non acceptance of tax in respect of 1.08 Acres of land in Sy.No.214/3 of Venniyur Village. When tax was refused to be accepted, he made Ext.P5 representation to the second respondent. Thereafter, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).12304/2011, which was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment directing consideration of his representation. Accordingly Ext.P5 was considered by the second respondent and passed Ext.P7 stating that in view of the claim of title over the property by more than one person, tax cannot be accepted. It is challenging this order, the writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P7 and to direct acceptance of tax. 2. First of all, as at present, the property has to be mutated in the name of the petitioner. In such circumstances, at this state, the claim of the petitioner for accepting tax in respect of the aforesaid property, is premature. W.P.(C).32738/11 2 3. Therefore, irrespective of the dispute of title mentioned in Ext.P7, I am not inclined to consider the prayer of the petitioner. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs /true copy/ P.A. To Judge