IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 1ST ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 29294 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. A.MOHAMMED, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, KOYITHODE HOUSE, P.O.MANIMOOLA, BANTHADUKKA VILLAGE, KASARGOD, REP. BY HIS P/AT HOLDER A.ABOOBACKER, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, KOYITHODE HOUSE, P.O. MANIMOOLA, BANTHADUKKA VILLAGE, KASARGOD. 2. A.ABDULLA, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, KOYITHODE HOUSE, P.O.MANIMOOLA, BANTHADUKKA VILLAGE, KASARGOD, REP. BY HIS P/AT HOLDER A.ABOOBACKER, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, KOYITHODE HOUSE, P.O. MANIMOOLA, BANTHADUKKA VILLAGE, KASARGOD. 3. A.MAHIN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, KOYITHODE HOUSE, P.O.MANIMOOLA, BANTHADUKKA VILLAGE, KASARGOD, REP. BY HIS P/AT HOLDER A.ABOOBACKER, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, KOYITHODE HOUSE, P.O. MANIMOOLA, BANTHADUKKA VILLAGE, KASARGOD. 4. A.ABOOBACKER, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, KOYITHODE HOUSE, P.O.MANIMOOLA, BANTHADUKKA VILLAGE, KASARGOD. 5. A.AHAMMED, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, KOYITHODE HOUSE,P.O.MANIMOOLA, BANTHADUKKA VILLAGE, KASARGOD, REP. BY HIS P/AT HOLDER A.ABOOBAKCER, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, KOYITHODE HOUSE, P.O.MANIMOOLA, BANTHADUKKA VILLAGE, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SRI.A.BALAGOPALAN SRI.A.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR WPC NO.29294/2010 -2- RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARGOD. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KASARGOD. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, BANTHADUKKA VILLAGE, KASARGOD. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29294 OF 2010 (J) ===================== Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners submit that an extent of 12.5 acres of land in RS 198/1 of Banthadukka Village was purchased by them by Exts.P1 to P5 from the respective vendors. 2. It is stated that thereupon they got the property mutated in their names and tax was also being paid till July 2009. This is sought to be supported by referring to Ext.P6 series of documents. However, thereafter tax was not accepted and aggrieved by that, the petitioners approached this Court resulting in Ext.P9 judgment. By the said judgment, the Tahsildar, the 2nd respondent herein was directed to decide on the representation made by the petitioners requesting for acceptance of land tax. Accordingly, Tahsildar considered the issue and passed Ext.P10 order directing acceptance of tax in respect of 6.65 acres of land. It is ordered that in respect of the remaining extent, vigilance case is pending as per CC No. 1/2006 in the First Class Magistrate Court, Palakkad and therefore, tax cannot be accepted. 3. A reading of the order itself shows that the case WPC No. 29294/10 :2 : mentioned above is against one of the vendors of the petitioners and the petitioners are not involved in that case. It is on this ground the petitioners contend that there is no justification in refusing to accept tax in respect of the whole extent. 4. Irrespective of the merits of the vigilance case, fact remains that, as at present, the property has been mutated in the name of the petitioners. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to pay tax, and ultimately if the transaction itself gets invalidated, the petitioners are bound to suffer consequences. In that view of the matter, I quash Ext.P10 and direct that tax be accepted in respect of the whole extent of 12.5 acres in RS 198/1 which has been mutated in favour of the petitioners. 5. Petitioners have a prayer for the issuance of a possession certificate. It is directed that it will be open to the petitioners to make an appropriate application to the 2nd respondent, in which event, an enquiry will be held and orders will be passed untramelled by the pendency of the criminal case mentioned above. WPC No. 29294/10 :3 : 6. Petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp