Petitioners are the legal heirs of late John who died on 5.12.2012. He purchased the properties having 12.16 and 13.86 Ares in Ayyampuzha Village. After purchase, mutation was effected and deceased John was paying land tax and it is evident from Ext.P2 that the tax was paid upto 2011-2012. Exts.P3 and P3(a) are the location certificates issued by the second respondent with respect to the properties. After his death, the above said properties devolved upon the petitioners herein. When the petitioners approached the second respondent to remit tax, he declined to receive the tax for the reason that some amount is due from the predecessor in interest to the Government. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no liability at the time of the purchase of the properties. As there was no liability, mutation was effected and Thandaper No.3126 was also assigned. By Ext.P4 judgment, this Court directed the W.P(. C)No.5124 OF 2014 : 2 :
second respondent to receive the tax with respect to another portion of the property purchased from very same vendor by one Lilly. Therefore, the non receipt of the land tax from the title holder on the ground of liability of the previous owner is illegal.
3. Being aggrieved by this, petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the second respondent to receive land tax with respect to the property having an extent of 12.16 Ares in Re Sy. No.157/1/2 and 13.86 Ares in Re Sy. No.157/1/3 of Ayyampuzha Village in the name of Thandaper holder.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the decisions in Thulasibai v. State of Kerala and others [2010 (4) KHC 142] and Anwar M. Essa v. District Collector, Ernakulam [2010 (1) KLT 747] wherein this Court has held that, any liability from the Thandapper holder is not a ground to decline to accept the land tax. Therefore, the second respondent is legally bound to receive the land tax, particularly, in view of the dictum laid down by this Court cited above.
5. Heard learned Government Pleader as well.
W.P(. C)No.5124 OF 2014 : 3 :
6. After hearing both sides, this Court finds that there is no reason why the land revenue shall not be collected in relation to the property in question, in the account of the Thandaper holder. The collection of revenue is income for the State. Therefore, it is clarified that if the refusal is for the reason that the predecessor in interest has liabilities to the first respondent, that reason will not be held against the petitioner. In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to receive the land tax, if any offered in the name of or on behalf of the Thandaper account holder, and issue receipts in accordance with law. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment and writ petition before the second respondent for compliance.
Writ petition is disposed of.
jes P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge