Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in accepting tax pertaining to the property belonging to the petitioner, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
2. The petitioner alleges that she is in possession of 1.970 hectares of property comprised in Sy.No.211/1 of Thrikkaipatta Village, which was obtained as per sale deed no.2059/1977 of Vythiri SRO. According to the petitioner, there are no subsisting encumbrances in respect of the said property. Her case is that after 2001, the petitioner did not remit the land tax payable in respect of the property due to oversight. It is further alleged that during 2009, a partnership firm of the children of the petitioner has been awarded dealership in respect of a motor vehicle; and for the purpose of the said dealership business, the partnership firm applied for and obtained a W.P.(C) No. 35534 of 2009 ..2..
cash credit facility from Indian Overseas Bank, Kalpetta. As the bank insisted for the latest tax receipt, the petitioner through her son approached the 4th respondent, who refused to collect land tax on the ground that the property of her son has been attached under Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpetta in ST No.1285/2003. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.
3. In the statement filed by the respondent State, the contention taken is that the petitioner has effected seven transfers in respect of the property and the extent of the land, to which the transactions were made, is in excess of the extent covered in the original document.
4. Arguments have been heard.
5. The petitioner's case is that she is possessing 1.970 hectares of land as per the sale deed. She wants to remit tax in respect of the same. The fact that she is in possession of the property is evidenced by Ext.P2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the W.P.(C) No. 35534 of 2009 ..3..
criminal case pending against the petitioner's son ended in an acquittal as evidenced by Ext.P5. So long as the certificate issued by the revenue authority itself would indicate that the petitioner is in possession of 1.970 hectares of property, the respondents are not justified in not accepting the land tax in respect of the aforesaid property. If anybody has a case that the petitioner has no title over the property, it has to be subjected to adjudication before a competent civil court.
Therefore, the writ petition is allowed.
The 4th respondent is directed to accept land tax payable by the petitioner in respect of her property covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
bka/-
Sd/-
A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE