IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 27255 of 2008(T) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- JOY KUTTY THOMAS, W/O. THOMAS GEORGE, AGED 46, JOY COTTAGE (MELATHIL VEEDU) MARKET WORD, KANNIMEL, PATTAZHI, KOTTARAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PATTAZHY SOUTH, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, THE PATHANAPURAM PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD NO.Q995, PUNALUR P.O., PUNALUR, (PRESENTLY PATTAZHY STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, Q-1023) 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R.PUSHPALATHA FOR R1,R3&R4 ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.S.SHARAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.27255/2008 T APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE REMITTANCE OF THE TAX IN THE YEAR 2007 DTD. 6/2/2007. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 6/2/2007. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 3/3/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(A): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.18970/01 DTD. 22/03/2002 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.R2(B): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CCC NO.1361/02 DTD. 20/09/2006 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. EXT.R2(C): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.REF.2952/06-07 DTD. 18/10/2006 ISSUED BY THE PATHANAPURAM PRIMARY CO-OP.AGRL. AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.Q 995 TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2(D): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PUNALUR DTD. 24/01/2007. EXT.R2(E): COPY OF THE LETTER NO.6982/07-08 DTD. 6/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PATTAZHY. EXT.R2(F): COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA STATE FARMERS DEBTS RELIEF COMMISSION DTD. 24/09/2007. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.27255 OF 2008 ------------------------ Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that the property covered by Ext.P1 tax receipt and Ext.P2 possession certificate, belongs to him and that till now he has paid tax in respect of the property. It is stated that in 2008 he made Ext.P3 application to the first respondent to accept land tax and also issue a possession certificate. That was declined by the first respondent on the ground that the second respondent has requested the first respondent not to accept tax or issue possession certificate to the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner has incurred certain liability to the second respondent bank. 2. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, what they submit is that mortgaging the property the petitioner has availed of liabilities and that the same properties were again WP(c).No.27255/08 2 mortgaged in favour of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. It is stated that on account of the cheating that the petitioner committed they have already filed criminal complaint against the petitioner and that the case is pending before the criminal court. It is also stated that it is because of this that Ext.R2(c) complaint was made to the first respondent requesting not to accept tax or issue possession certificate. 3. The petitioner has not disputed the liability to the Bank. However, he being the owner of the property when he tenders the tax, that is due in respect of the property, the first respondent is liable to accept the same. It is also rightly contended that request for possession certificate is also liable to be allowed for the reason that so long as he is in possession, the certificate is liable to be issued certifying the same. 4. As already noticed, according to the bank after mortgaging the property, the petitioner has mortgaged the same property in favour of the LIC and that the idea of the petitioner may to create additional liabilities. Though the apprehension of the Bank cannot be said to be totally WP(c).No.27255/08 3 misplaced, so long as the petitioner is the owner of the property he is entitled to pay tax due there on and the first respondent is liable to accept the same. In case a possession certificate is applied for, that also has to be enquired into and necessary orders are to be passed. The fact that the petitioner owes liability to the Bank or that the Bank has initiated any action for recovering the same cannot stand in the way of the first respondent in discharging his aforesaid duties. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to accept the tax and also to consider the application made by the petitioner for possession certificate and orders thereon shall be passed without any delay. This judgment shall not be understood as restraining the Bank from initiating any action that it is competent to initiate for recovering its dues. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.27255/08 4