Smitha vs The Tahasildar on 27 August, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 27501 of 2008(Y)


1. SMITHA, AGED 37 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE TAHASILDAR, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AMBALAPUZHA VILLAGE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :27/08/2009

 O R D E R
                             S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

                     ==================

                       W.P(C).No.27501 of 2008

                     ==================

               Dated this the 27th day of August, 2009

                             J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is the wife of one Sri.Satheeshkumar, who is the

owner 29.90 acres of property in Sy.No.250/5-1 and 250/5 in block

No.14 of Ambalapuzha Village. The petitioner’s husband is abroad.

Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition on behalf of her

husband. The petitioner’s husband has been paying land tax in respect

of the said property upto the year 2007-08. The petitioner complains

that on 30.8.2008, when the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent

for remitting land tax for the year 2008-09, the 2nd respondent refused

to accept the same on the ground that there are two attachment

orders from two Magistrate courts in C.C.No.871/2007 of Ambalapuzha

Magistrate Court and STC No.143/2008 of Payyannur Magistrate

Court in respect of the said property. Ext.P3 is the communication

received from the Village Officer by the petitioner in that regard. The

petitioner submits that attachment by a court does not affect the title

to the property and, therefore, there is no reason for non-acceptance

of the land tax.

2. The learned Government Pleader submits that it is the

State who has attached the property in question pursuant to the

orders of the criminal courts and, therefore, if the Government

2

themselves accepts land tax in respect of the property, it would

prejudicially affect the attachment itself.

3. Having heard both sides, I do not think that acceptance of

land tax would in any way affect the right of the State in respect of the

attachment orders. Accordingly, I direct the 2nd respondent to accept

land tax in respect of the property in question. However, it would be

open to the 2nd respondent to endorse in the tax receipt that the land

is subject to attachment in the said criminal cases. It is made clear

that the petitioner or her husband would not be entitled to raise any

contentions against the State in respect of those attachment merely on

the ground of acceptance of land tax.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

sdk+                                             S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

         ///True copy///




                               P.A. to Judge