IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36283 of 2008(T)
1. RAHEEMA BALKEES T., AGED 32 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE LAND TRIBUNAL,
... Respondent
2. THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPALAM.
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILAYUR.
4. SHRI.MATHEW, AGED 81 YEARS,
5. SOSAMMA, AGED 78 YEARS, D/O.LATE THOMAS,
6. ABRAHAM, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O.LATE THOMAS,
For Petitioner :SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :19/01/2010
O R D E R
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.36283 OF 2008
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved by the non-acceptance of basic
tax in respect of immovable property by the revenue authorities
which, according to the petitioner, is without any justifiable
reason.
2. The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of Muhammed
who expired in the year 1999. The father of Muhammed, late
Avarankutty, was the original owner of the property. In the
proceedings of the Taluk Land Board, the entitlement of
Muhammed and Avarankutty was upheld. It is pointed out that
after the re-survey, mutation was also effected in respect of the
property in favour of Muhammed. The co-owners have effected
partition in the year 2008.
3. There is a suit pending before the Sub Court,
Ottappalam at the instance of respondents 4 to 6. A question of
tenancy has been raised by the respondents 4 to 6 herein with
W.P.(C) No.36283/2008 2
regard to a portion of the above mentioned property included in
O.S.No.76/1995 before the Sub Court, Ottappalam. The said
question has been pending for decision in R.C.No.8/2004
registered as per the order in O.S.No.76/1995, before the Land
Tribunal, Ottappalam. Having found that the revenue authorities
are not effecting mutation in the light of the fact that proceedings
are pending before the Land Tribunal, the petitioner has
approached this Court by filing this writ petition.
4. It is pointed out that the Land Tribunal even though
conducted an enquiry, final orders have not been produced. The
2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that the
basic tax can be accepted on production of relevant documents
and the previous basic tax receipts if there is no dispute
regarding the claimed land. Here the claimed land is disputed
land and the dispute is for fixity of tenure. The stand taken by
the 2nd respondent in the counter affidavit is that unless and until
the civil suit is disposed of, there will be difficulties for the
revenue authorities to accept basic tax to effect mutation. It is
pointed out that on receipt of the petition, a report was called for
W.P.(C) No.36283/2008 3
from the Village Officer and the petitioners were heard several
times.
5. The 4th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit. It
is pointed out that unless the civil dispute is finalised, the
petitioner cannot be allowed to pay basic tax to effect mutation.
Faced with the situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner
prayed for a direction to accept basic tax and to effect mutation
in respect of the undisputed property.
6. The matter pending before the Land Tribunal relates to
the claim of tenancy. But, there cannot be any objection for
receipt of basic tax. Therefore, the revenue authorities will
collect the tax that is due to the exchequer and issue receipts to
the payee concerned. It is made clear that the same will be
subject to further orders to be passed by the Land Tribunal and
the judgment to be rendered by the civil court.
7. In the report received from the Land Tribunal dated
18.01.2010, it is pointed out that the matter is prolonged before
it since the counsel appearing for the parties are not co-
operating. There are 28 defendants and 3 plaintiffs in
W.P.(C) No.36283/2008 4
O.S.No.76/1995 of Sub Court, Ottappalam and the case is only in
a preliminary stage even now. The Land Tribunal has offered to
take earnest steps to dispose of the matter within six months.
Therefore, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to
finalise the proceedings in R.C.No.8/2004 after hearing all the
parties within a period of six months from the date of production
of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
JUDGE
smp