IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7325 of 2009(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ M/S.DESIGN & INTERIORS, MUZHAPPILANGAD, KANNUR DISTRICT,REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER E.SHOBHANA. BY ADV. MR.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUZHAPPILANGAD,KANNUR. 4. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL MAJOR SECTION, DHARMADAM,THALASSERY,KANNUR. ADV. MR. P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B FOR R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.M.A.ASIF THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.7325/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2005-06. P2:- COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 18.12.08. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 30.1.09. P5:- COPY OF THE LETTER AND DD SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. PP6:- COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 7.2.09. P7:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN PC. NO.24099/06 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. TRUE COPY, P.A. TO JDUGE TSS ANTONY DOMINIC, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7325 of 2009 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 13th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Refusal of the third respondent to accept tax in respect of property purchased by the petitioner as per Exhibit P1, what is complained of in this writ petition. Petitioner submits that following the sale deed in his favour, the land was mutated in his name and tax was also paid and was accepted. While so, when the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent to remit tax for the year 2007-2008, he was issued Exhibit P6 based on Exhibit P4, stating that due to the pendency of Revenue Recovery, the transfer of property in his favour was not permissible under the Revenue Recovery Act . In my view, there is no justification for the view taken in Exhibit P6. If, for the reason that the vendor of the petitioner was a defaulter and that transfer is invalid under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, that invalidity will no way be cured by acceptance of the tax. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to tender payment of the tax due and the respondent is liable to W.P.(C) No. 7325/2009 2 accept the same. However, it is clarified that such acceptance of tax in respect of property will not cure any defect that the petitioner’s title may have on the property. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm