IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 RP.No. 117 of 2010(E) ------------------------------ (THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.34275/2008 DATED 09/06/2009) .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN THE W.P.(C): --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPPALAM. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAMPUZHIPPURAM-2. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR.. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE W.P.(C): --------------------------------------------------------------- C.K. AYYAPPAN PILLAI, S/O. KRISHNAN PILLAI, CHACKALACKAL HOUSE, UMMANAZHI, PULAPPATTA, OTTAPPALAM. BY ADV. MR.P.R.VENKETESH. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.117/2010 in W.P.(C).34275/2008-E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010. Order 1.Heard. 2.The only direction that has been issued as per the judgment sought to be reviewed is to receive basic tax from the petitioner without prejudice to the right of the Government to initiate action on the basis of any allegation that the land in question actually vests in the Government by reason of surrender by Ramankutty Vaidiar in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Such direction was issued in view of Ext.P8 wherein the Tahsildar has directed the Village Officer that basic tax can be received, if the lands are in the possession of the petitioner in view of the decision of the Revenue Department referred to in Ext.P8. The direction issued by the Tahsildar to the Village Officer is RP117/10 -: 2 :- that the action can be taken after ascertaining whether it is an undisputed land. Therefore, the only consequence that ought to have followed Ext.P8 is that the Village Officer should have looked into the papers and found out whether the land in question is part of the lands surrendered by Ramankutty Vaidiar or otherwise, the basic tax should have been received. Sleeping over the files for four years is no reason for the revenue officials to state that they would not receive the basic tax merely because the last payment was some time in 1980. Non-payment of basic tax does not denude a person of title to property. Equally, payment of basic tax does not also confer title, if the individual does not have title to property. This review has been necessitated only because of the confusion created by the lethargic attitude adopted by the review petitioners in not finalizing the proceedings following Ext.P8. This review petition is, therefore, ordered clarifying RP117/10 -: 3 :- that the judgment sought to be reviewed does not stand in the way of the competent authority concluding any proceedings relating to the classification of the land in question as referable to Government land or otherwise, including as to whether it is an item of land which stands vested in the Government by reason of surrender as excess land as per the provisions of the KLR Act. However, such proceedings shall be concluded within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the collection of basic tax would be on the basis of such decision. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/0804