IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 21997 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------------- K.E.MOHANDAS, THIYYAKKANDICHALIL VEEDU, KINALUR AMSOM, KINALUR DESOM, KANNADIPOYIL POST, KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. K.E.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, THANATHIL MADATHIL VEEDU, KINALUR AMSOM, MUNDAKARA DESOM, POST KINALUR, KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.21997 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT The 4th respondent filed an application before the Tahsildar, Koyilandi, for accepting land tax from him in respect of certain property. The petitioner claims to be the owner of that property. In spite of the same, by Ext.P3 order, the Tahsildar directed the Village Officer to accept basic tax from the 4th respondent. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 appeal before the Appellate Authority namely, the 2nd respondent – District Collector under the Land Tax Act. The petitioner apprehends that he will not get justice from the 2nd respondent in view of alleged conduct of the District Collector, while the petitioner and the 4th respondent appeared before him. According to the petitioner, because the 4th respondent have donated land for construction of a Village Office, the 2nd respondent is prejudiced in the matter and is favourably disposed towards the 4th respondent. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: W.P.(c)No.21997/08 2 “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 2 nd respondent not to hear Ext.P4 and transfer the same. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1 st respondent to transfer Ext.P4 from the 2 nd respondent. (iii) Stay all further proceedings in Ext.P4 appeal until the disposal of this writ petition”. 2. For deciding this issue, I may have to take evidence regarding the allegations raised against the 2nd respondent. Even otherwise I am of opinion that the authorities under the Land Tax Act cannot decide the question of title to the property either way. The matter necessarily has to go before a Civil Court for deciding the issue of title. In view of the said fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a suit for declaration of his title to the property in question, the writ petition may be disposed of making it clear that the orders passed by the authorities under the Land Tax Act would not affect the contentions of the parties in such suit, if filed. 3. I am of opinion that no separate clarification is necessary in that regard in so far as the authorities under the Kerala Land Tax Act does not have any jurisdiction to decide the question of title to the property. Whatever decision they W.P.(c)No.21997/08 3 pass under the Kerala Land Tax Act would only be for the purpose of that Act. The same will not bind any party in a suit for declaration of title, where the decision has to be on the basis of evidence before the Court. With the above observation, this writ petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to get his title to the property declared in a properly constituted suit. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.21997/08 4