IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH AUGUST 2011 / 2ND BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 21941 of 2011(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NARAYANAN,S/O. KUNJANDI, POTHIKALKALAM,ERUTHENPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VILLAGE OFFICER, ERUTHENPATHY VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN-678 558. 2. TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PIN-678 101. SR GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21941 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1211/1994 OF SRO, KOZHINJAMPARA EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CMP NO.31908/97 IN O.P.17908/97 DATED 7.11.1997 EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT MADE IN O.P.17908/1997 AND 30396/2002 DATED 30.8.2005 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR MADE IN O.S.479/2002 DATED 19.9.2003 EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, CHITTUR MADE IN O.S.391/2008 DATED 11.3.2011 (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).21941/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 24th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner complains that in respect of 19¼ cents of land in Survey No.617/3 (R.S.84/1) in Kaikatti in Eruthenpathy Village, Chittur Taluk, tax is not accepted by the respondents. His allegation is that, the reason for non acceptance of the tax is the alleged pendency of O.S.Nos.479/2002 and 391/2008. According to the petitioner, both Suits are dismissed as withdrawn as per Exts.P3 and Ext.P5 judgments respectively. It is stated that therefore, in the absence of pendency of the aforesaid Suits, there is no reason for refusal to accept the tax. If, as stated by the petitioner, the reason for non acceptance of the tax was the pendency of the aforesaid Suits, in view of Exts.P4 and P5, such refusal is a matter to be reconsidered. Therefore, I direct that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, the first respondent shall reconsider the request of the petitioner for acceptance of tax in respect of the property mentioned above. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs