IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36283 of 2008(T) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- RAHEEMA BALKEES T., AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.ABDU T., THIYYATTIL HOUSE, VALLAPUZHA P.O., OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD - 679 336. BY MR.MILLU DANDAPANI, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPALAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILAYUR. 4. SHRI.MATHEW, AGED 81 YEARS, S/O.LATE THOMAS, MUNDUTHOTTATHIL, AYIROOR, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 5. SOSAMMA, AGED 78 YEARS, D/O.LATE THOMAS, MUNDUTHOTTATHIL, AYIROOR, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 6. ABRAHAM, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.LATE THOMAS, MUNDUTHOTTATHIL, AYIROOR, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY MR.P.N. SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 - R3 MR.K.JAJU BABU, ADVOCATE, FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.36283 OF 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-acceptance of basic tax in respect of immovable property by the revenue authorities which, according to the petitioner, is without any justifiable reason. 2. The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of Muhammed who expired in the year 1999. The father of Muhammed, late Avarankutty, was the original owner of the property. In the proceedings of the Taluk Land Board, the entitlement of Muhammed and Avarankutty was upheld. It is pointed out that after the re-survey, mutation was also effected in respect of the property in favour of Muhammed. The co-owners have effected partition in the year 2008. 3. There is a suit pending before the Sub Court, Ottappalam at the instance of respondents 4 to 6. A question of tenancy has been raised by the respondents 4 to 6 herein with W.P.(C) No.36283/2008 2 regard to a portion of the above mentioned property included in O.S.No.76/1995 before the Sub Court, Ottappalam. The said question has been pending for decision in R.C.No.8/2004 registered as per the order in O.S.No.76/1995, before the Land Tribunal, Ottappalam. Having found that the revenue authorities are not effecting mutation in the light of the fact that proceedings are pending before the Land Tribunal, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 4. It is pointed out that the Land Tribunal even though conducted an enquiry, final orders have not been produced. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that the basic tax can be accepted on production of relevant documents and the previous basic tax receipts if there is no dispute regarding the claimed land. Here the claimed land is disputed land and the dispute is for fixity of tenure. The stand taken by the 2nd respondent in the counter affidavit is that unless and until the civil suit is disposed of, there will be difficulties for the revenue authorities to accept basic tax to effect mutation. It is pointed out that on receipt of the petition, a report was called for W.P.(C) No.36283/2008 3 from the Village Officer and the petitioners were heard several times. 5. The 4th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out that unless the civil dispute is finalised, the petitioner cannot be allowed to pay basic tax to effect mutation. Faced with the situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for a direction to accept basic tax and to effect mutation in respect of the undisputed property. 6. The matter pending before the Land Tribunal relates to the claim of tenancy. But, there cannot be any objection for receipt of basic tax. Therefore, the revenue authorities will collect the tax that is due to the exchequer and issue receipts to the payee concerned. It is made clear that the same will be subject to further orders to be passed by the Land Tribunal and the judgment to be rendered by the civil court. 7. In the report received from the Land Tribunal dated 18.01.2010, it is pointed out that the matter is prolonged before it since the counsel appearing for the parties are not co- operating. There are 28 defendants and 3 plaintiffs in W.P.(C) No.36283/2008 4 O.S.No.76/1995 of Sub Court, Ottappalam and the case is only in a preliminary stage even now. The Land Tribunal has offered to take earnest steps to dispose of the matter within six months. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to finalise the proceedings in R.C.No.8/2004 after hearing all the parties within a period of six months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE smp