IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2011 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32858 of 2011(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- ABDUL RASAK, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 58 YEARS, SAJITHA MANZIL, MANGARAM P.O., KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT. SUBHA ABRAHAM SRI.MATHEW CHACKO SMT.C.B.SUMA DEVI SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KONNI VILLAGE OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 691. R1 BY ADV.SRI.M.J.RAJASREE, SR.GOVT. PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DG WP(C).No. 32858 of 2011(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 - COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.E 1898575 DATED 10.8.2010 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONE. EXT.P2 - COPY OF ORDER NO.843/2011 DATED 23.3.2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 - COPY OF THE PETITION FILED AS OP NO.966/2010 IN THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS - NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE DG ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 32858 of 2011 F ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 9th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioner claims to have ownership and possession of 1.05 Ares of land in R.S.No.269/7 of Block No.33 of Konni village. His grievance is regarding the refusal on the part of the respondent in accepting tax or issuing possession certificate and location sketch. It is seen that his request in that behalf has been rejected by Ext.P2 and the reason stated is that, by order in I.A.No.2494/2010 in O.P.No.996/2010 of the Family Court, Kollam, there is an attachment over the property in question. 2. In my view, the fact that the attachment is in force is no reason to decline acceptance of tax or issue possession certificate, as sought for by the petitioner. This issue has already been considered and decided in favour of the petitioner in the judgment in Thulasibai Vs. State of Kerala [2010 (4) KLT 215]. W.P.(C) No.32858/2011 : 2 : 3. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to succeed and the writ petition is disposed of, quashing Ext.P2 and directing that tax in respect of the property in question will be accepted and possession certificate and location sketch will be issued to the petitioner. However, it is clarified that the acceptance of tax shall not be to the prejudice to the proceedings that are pending against the petitioner in the Court mentioned above. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition before the respondent for compliance. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/09/12 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge