IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 19816 of 2010(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. JOY DANIEL, S/O.K.V.DANIEL, KANNAMPUZHA HOUSE, THADATHIL LANE, CHELAKOTTUKARA. 2. ANITHA, W/O.JOY DANIEL, KANNAMPUZHA HOUSE, THADATHIL LANE, CHELAKOTTUKARA. BY ADVS. SRI.H.HAMZA ROWTHER, SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PANANCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. *ADDL.R3. IMPLEADED: 3. BANK OF INDIA, THRISSUR MAIN BRANCH, M.G. ROAD, THRISSUR. *ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDNET IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/07/10 IN I.A. 9449/10. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN, ADDL. R3 BY ADVS. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE, SRI.MATHEWS V.JACOB (PARAVUR), SMT.CISSY MATHEWS. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.19816 of 2010-B ---------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners claim that they are the owners of different items of immovable properties situated in Panancherry Village in Thrissur Taluk. Exts.P1 to P3 are land tax receipts produced evidencing payment of land tax with respect to those properties. Exts.P1 to P3 pertains to various properties for different years like, 2005-06, 2007-08 and 2008-09. Grievance voiced by the petitioners is that the second respondent is now refusing to accept land tax with respect to properties covered by Exts.P1 to P3, on the ground that revenue recovery proceedings are pending against the petitioners. According to the petitioners, they had submitted Ext.P4 petition seeking to furnish information under the Right to Information Act, as to why the land tax is not being accepted. In Ext.P5 reply, the Village Officer had intimated that since directions have been received from the Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery, to attach the immovable and movable properties belonging to the first petitioner, land tax could not be accepted till such proceedings are W.P(C) No.19816 of 2010-B 2 cleared and orders in this regard was obtained from the Tahasildar. According to the petitioner, even in cases where attachments were ordered, there is no bar for acceptance of land tax. The petitioners relies on a decision of this Court in Anwar M.Easa V. District Collector and others (2010(2) Kerala 515) and other decisions of this Court in support of the above contention. 2. On the basis of direction issued by this Court, the third respondent Bank was impleaded, at the behest of whom the revenue recovery steps was initiated. In a counter affidavit filed by the third respondent it is contended that, the petitioners have approached this Court suppressing material facts. It is pointed that various proceedings with respect to recovery of the arrears are pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal as well as the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court. The property in question has already been proceeded against under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court had already issued an order to take over possession of the property under Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act. It is also stated that the petitioners had already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal W.P(C) No.19816 of 2010-B 3 challenging such proceedings and inspite of conditional stay granted they failed to comply with those conditions. It is also contended that, against the revenue recovery proceedings, the petitioners had approached the Government and obtained instalment facilities, but payment under such order was also defaulted. Yet another contention is that there was a settlement arrived with respect to payment of arrears, in a Lok Adalath conducted under by the Legal Service Authority at Thrissur. But the petitioners still failed to comply with the terms of the settlement. It is also pointed that the petitioners had approached this Court on an earlier occasion and inspite of indulgence shown, the petitioners have not complied with the conditions stipulated. The petitioners had filed a reply affidavit refuting such allegations. 3. Considering the rival contentions, I am of the view that the issues pertaining to validity of the recovery steps need not be considered in this writ petition. It is the settled law that pendency of a revenue recovery proceedings is not a bar for acceptance of land tax from the person liable for payment of tax under the Land Tax Act. In the case at hand the third respondent also points out that there exist some disputes regarding the identity of properties. W.P(C) No.19816 of 2010-B 4 Therefore, I am of the opinion that if the Village Officer is convinced that the petitioners are persons entitled to remit land tax of the properties in question the same shall be accepted, despite pendency of any recovery steps against the petitioners, without prejudice to such proceedings initiated under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. 4. Attachment and further proceedings against the immovable properties can be pursued despite acceptance of land tax from the petitioners. It is also made clear that acceptance of land tax will not cause prejudice in any manner to all other steps now initiated by the third respondent Bank for realising the amounts due to them, including proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge ab