IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 27501 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SMITHA, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.SATHEESH KUMAR, THATTARUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEERKUNNAM, ALLEPPY. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHASILDAR, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AMBALAPUZHA VILLAGE ALLEPPY DISTRICT. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.DILIP MOHAN FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 27501/08. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT. P2. COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY. P3. COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. P4. COPY OF THE PETITION TO R1. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.27501 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the wife of one Sri.Satheeshkumar, who is the owner 29.90 acres of property in Sy.No.250/5-1 and 250/5 in block No.14 of Ambalapuzha Village. The petitioner's husband is abroad. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on behalf of her husband. The petitioner's husband has been paying land tax in respect of the said property upto the year 2007-08. The petitioner complains that on 30.8.2008, when the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for remitting land tax for the year 2008-09, the 2nd respondent refused to accept the same on the ground that there are two attachment orders from two Magistrate courts in C.C.No.871/2007 of Ambalapuzha Magistrate Court and STC No.143/2008 of Payyannur Magistrate Court in respect of the said property. Ext.P3 is the communication received from the Village Officer by the petitioner in that regard. The petitioner submits that attachment by a court does not affect the title to the property and, therefore, there is no reason for non-acceptance of the land tax. 2. The learned Government Pleader submits that it is the State who has attached the property in question pursuant to the orders of the criminal courts and, therefore, if the Government 2 themselves accepts land tax in respect of the property, it would prejudicially affect the attachment itself. 3. Having heard both sides, I do not think that acceptance of land tax would in any way affect the right of the State in respect of the attachment orders. Accordingly, I direct the 2nd respondent to accept land tax in respect of the property in question. However, it would be open to the 2nd respondent to endorse in the tax receipt that the land is subject to attachment in the said criminal cases. It is made clear that the petitioner or her husband would not be entitled to raise any contentions against the State in respect of those attachment merely on the ground of acceptance of land tax. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge