IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8811 of 2010(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AVARA HAJI, S/O.KUNHAHAMMED HAJI, KATTUKANDAN HOUSE, KULUKILIYAD, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A SRI.K.C.KIRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TAHSILDAR, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER, KARIMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. KALIKUTTY, W/O.KUNJUNNI @ KUTTAN, KANNATHU HOUSE, P.O.KOTTAPPURAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.8811/2010-B ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 17th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9 by which the Tahsildar rejected the request for payment of land tax. He claims that the he is having ownership in respect of 28 ares of plot in Survey Nos.132/4 and 5 of Kulikiliyad amsom in Ottappalam Taluk. The same was mortgaged to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 and the said mortgage has not been redeemed also. The fourth respondent herein is the daughter-in-law of late Shri Krishnan Moothan who had mortgaged the property to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he is still in possession of the property. But, for a short period, the brother of the petitioner was in possession pursuance to an assignment from the petitioner which he subsequently reconveyed to the petitioner and, thereafter, the petitioner is in possession throughout. From 1976 onwards he has paid basic tax. Exts.P2 to P8 are produced in support of the above plea. By Ext.P9 Tahsildar informed the petitioner that a dispute has been raised by the legal heirs of the late Krishnan Moothan and, therefore, the petitioner has to approach the Civil Court in the matter. Challenging the same, the W.P.(C). No.8811/2010 -:2:- petitioner has approached this Court with this writ petition. 2. The petitioner has a remedy to approach the District Collector under Section 9 of the Land Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, leaving open the said remedy, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms