IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 170 of 2011(U)
1. ROY ANTONY, AGED 44 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE THAHSILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY),
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
4. THE WELFARE FUND INSPECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.PRAMOD
For Respondent :SHRI KOSHY GEORGE,SC,KAWWFB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :05/01/2011
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No. 170 of 2011 U
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner claims to be the owner of 4.45 Ares of
land in survey Nos.22/18A and 22/15B of Kullckal village,
Alappuzha. His grievance is that the respondents refused to
accept tax in respect of his property on the ground that the
recovery proceedings at the instance of the fourth respondent
are pending against him.
2. Even it is accepted that the proceedings under the
Revenue Recovery Act was pending, still being the owner of
the property, in whose favour the land is mutated, the
petitioner is entitled to pay tax and if such amount is paid, the
respondents are liable to accept it.
3. Therefore, writ petition is disposed of, directing
that, if the petitioner tenders payment of tax in respect of his
property, the same will be accepted by the respondents.
However, it is clarified that this judgment will not stand in
W.P.(C) No.170/2011
: 2 :
the way of the respondents in continuing the recovery
proceedings nor will it affect the right of the petitioner to
challenge the recovery proceedings.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
aks