IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 RP.No. 542 of 2008(V) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7540/2007 .................... REVIEW PETITIONERS : RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, NILAMBUR. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AKAMPADAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ------------------------ POULOSE PAUL, THATTAMPARAMBIL, POOVATHODU POST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKATTIL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ---------------------------------------------- R.P. No. 542 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008 O R D E R By judgment dated 29.11.2007, this court disposed of the writ petition filed by the first respondent in this review petition, directing that the land tax in respect of 71 cents of land, comprised in survey No.5 of Akampadam Village will be accepted by the Village Officer, Akampadam, the 3rd respondent in the writ petition. Subsequently, this review had been filed by the respondents claiming that the petitioner had no property, in respect of which tax can be paid. 2. The aforesaid contention is made mainly on the basis that the petitioner was the owner of 9 acres of land covered by document Nos.1885/74,2128/74 and 2255/88. RP.No.542/2008 2 3. It has now come out that, apart from the 9 acres referred to above, the petitioner had one more acre of land covered by Annexure-A1 title deed. 4. In my view, a controversy as to the identity of the property and the availability there of is not an issue that should detain this court. The reason is that the civil court has already declared the title of the petitioner in respect of 70 cents of land and that judgment is Annexure-A2 rendered by the Sub Court, Manjery in O.S.No.176/94. By the aforesaid judgment, the civil court had declared the title of the petitioner and granted him a decree for recovery of its possession. That judgment was challenged before this court in A.S.No.271/2002 and the same was dismissed with cost as per Ext.P2 judgment. 5. Subsequently, Ext.P2 judgment has been confirmed by the apex court in Ext.P3 order in SLP.No.7416/2005. Consequent on this, the petitioner filed E.P.No.25/2002 before the Civil Court and ultimately by Ext.P4 the property was delivered to him through the process of court. Ext.P4 gives the schedule of the properties and the extent is also RP.No.542/2008 3 indicated as 70 cents. Though in the writ petition, claim is that the writ petitioner is entitled to pay tax in respect of the 71 cents of land now that Ext.P4 covers 70 cents of land, his entitlement to pay tax has to be confined to the land covered by Ext.P4. Since, the petitioner's title has been adjudicated by the civil court and that judgment has been confirmed by this court and by the Supreme Court and the property has been given delivery by Ext.P4 the dispute of identity now raised by the respondent cannot be accepted. I do not merit in the writ petition and it is dismissed. Respondents in the writ petition shall forthwith accept the land tax of the property covered by Ext.P4 on the production of a copy of this order. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. RP.No.542/2008 4