IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 4TH APRIL 2008 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 7625 of 2008(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER: 1 ------------- PANDIKASHALA NARIKUTH SAIDALAVI S/O. MUHAMMED, ALINGATHODI HOUSE P.O. PULICKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE TAHAZILDAR, ERANADU TALUK TALUK OFFICE, MANKERI. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER PULICKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. PARIYARAN CHATHAN KUTTY S/O. CHATHAN, KEERIKUNNU VEEDU P.O.PULICKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. CHERUKUNNATH KESAVAN, S/O. CHATHUKUTTY, P.O.PULICKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1&2 BY G.P. SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEL R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF DECREE IN OS 753/86. P2: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN CRP 511/93 DT.18.10.1993. P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN AA 319/82 DT.27.9.84. P4: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY R1. P5: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.23.2.2007 IN WPC NO.3677/07. P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.19.12.2007 OF R1. P7: TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION DT.28.8.1968 WHICH WAS REPUBLISHED AS PER SRO 65/73. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.7625 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 4th day of April, 2008. JUDGMENT The third respondent approached the second respondent offering land tax in respect of an item of property claimed by him. The petitioner's case is that the property for which tax is offered by third respondent is covered by a decree in his favour. The 4th respondent is also stated to be a rival contender claiming title over the property. Having regard to the complex issue, I direct the second respondent to conduct inspection of the property, make local enquiries about ownership, possession, about improvement, cultivation etc. made in the property and building, if any, occupied by any person, and send a detailed report to the first respondent. The first respondent will hear the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 and pass orders as to who should pay the tax in respect of the same. I make it clear that dispute among parties should not lead to non-recovery of tax and tax should be recovered from the owner of the land or if there is doubt, from person in possession of it. If there is dispute on land or building, it has to be settled by civil court. The first respondent will leave it for decision by civil court. However, tax should be accepted provisionally and subject to civil court 2 orders, from whoever is the person who is apparently liable. As and when civil court decides the issue or executes the decree or passes final orders, tax demand should be regularised in terms of the decree. W.P. is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms