IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2011 / 1ST ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 22712 of 2011(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- THANKAMMA W/O.LATE NARAYANAN, THEKKEPANATTUCHIRA, KOKKOTHAMANGALAM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOKKOTHAMANGLAM VILLAGE OFFICE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 695 001. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MATHEW GEORG E VADEKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO.22712/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 02/07/2009 IN MAT.APPEAL NO.866/2008 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).22712/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT 1.Petitioner claim that she owns 6.07 ares of land in Survey No.77/10 of Kokkothamangalam Village. According to the petitioner, for the reason that the Family Court has ordered an attachment of the property in O.P.888/2007, tax in respect of the property is refused to be accepted by the respondent. It is complaining of the above, the writ petition is filed. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Joseph Kurian v. Village Officer (2010 (3) KLT, 251). 3.If as stated by the petitioner attachment by the Family Court is the reason for non acceptance of tax, in view of the principles laid down by this Court in the judgment referred to above, such action of the respondent cannot be upheld. 4.Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that if the Court attachment is the reason for non acceptance of tax, respondent shall accept the tax ignoring the same, on the production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs