WPC 27644/2007 High court of Kerala uploaded by James Joseph Adhikaram 9447464502 _pending Revenue Recovery is not a bar for receiving land tax "The petitioners say that land tax is not being collected from them on grounds referable to the pendency of revenue recovery proceedings. The collection of revenue is income for the State. There is no inhibition in the law relating to revenue recovery prohibiting collection of land tax in the name of the Thandaper holder and also issuance of receipts to the person who pays land tax as the receipt of land tax and the issuance of receipt will, in no  W.P.(C).No.27644/2007 way, hinder the revenue recovery proceedings. The question of the Government getting the title over the property would be only if it purchases the property in revenue auction. If the sale under the Revenue Recovery Act, following attachment, is in favour of a third party, the transfer of title will go accordingly. The mere attachment wil not result in an encumbrance which would necessarily deprive the State of its right to collect land revenue. Under such circumstances, there is no reason why land revenue shall not be collected in relation to the property in question, in the account of the Thandaper holder. The writ petition is, therefore, ordered directing that without prejudice to revenue recovery proceedings (Extg.P1) or any other revenue recovery proceedings, the land tax, if any, offered in the name of or on behalf of the Thandaper account holder, will be collected and receipts issued accordingly. All other issues on merits are left open." It will therefore evidence the fact that the mere attachment will not result in an encumbrance which would necessarily deprive the State of its right to collect land revenue.

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/22ND BHADRA 1934
WP(C).No. 27644 of 2007 (N)
---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
RIMMY
NAYARAMBALAM,NAYARAMBALAM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
SRI.P.GOPINATH
SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS
SECRETARY, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE TAHSILDAR, PARUR TALUK,
NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE,
PARUR TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-09-2012,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2. WPC.27644/2007
- 2 -
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1 COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2303/2001 DT 5.5.2001.
P2 COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.6658 OF 196 DT 8.11.96.
P3 COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DT 7.4.2000.
P4 COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DT 14.12.2004.
P5 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT 27.12.2004 ISSUED BY R3.
P6 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DT 13.12.2004.
P7 COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DT 23.1.2007.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
// True Copy //
PA to Judge

3. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 27644 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012
JUDGMENT
The petitioner seeks for a direction commanding the third respondent
to effect mutation of registry in the name of the petitioner after accepting
land tax from him.
2. The property is having an extent of 12 cents in Sy. No.112/7A of
Kottuvally Village, Parur Taluk which was purchased as per Ext.P1
document. The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal to effect mutation in
registry and for payment of tax.
3. In the statement filed on behalf of the second respondent, various
details have been furnished. It is stated that one Shri K.S.Mani was one of
the partners of Jaya Tourist Home, Paravur. Demand notices under
Sections 7 and 34 of the Revenue Recovery Act were issued to Shri K.S.
Mani and other 8 partners against the sales tax arrears due from the said
firm, for the years 1986-87 and 1987-88. More than Rs.10 lakhs is due
along with interest. Shri K.S.Mani filed O.P.no.755/2001 before this Court
which was disposed of and the District Collector was directed to proceed
with the revenue recovery proceedings. The property in question was

4. W.P.(C).No.27644/2007
-2-
transferred to defeat the revenue recovery proceedings initiated against Shri
K.S.Mani. The transferrer has no right to transfer the property which was
subjected to revenue recovery proceedings also.
4. The propriety and the legality of the collection of land tax in spite
of the pendency of the revenue recovery proceedings, is a matter which was
considered by this Court in various situations. In Joy Kutty Thomas v.
Village Officer (2009 (3) KLT 914) this Court held that even if Bank has
initiated action for recovering amount, Village Officer is bound to accept
tax and issue possession certificate. Similar is the view taken in Anwar
M. Easa v. District Collector, Ernakulam (2010 (1) KLT 747), wherein it
was held that land tax can be collected from Thandaper holder during the
pendency of revenue recovery proceedings. Therein, this Court held as
follows:
“The petitioners say that land tax is not being collected from them
on grounds referable to the pendency of revenue recovery
proceedings. The collection of revenue is income for the State.
There is no inhibition in the law relating to revenue recovery
prohibiting collection of land tax in the name of the Thandaper
holder and also issuance of receipts to the person who pays land
tax as the receipt of land tax and the issuance of receipt will, in no

5. W.P.(C).No.27644/2007
-3-
way, hinder the revenue recovery proceedings. The question of the
Government getting the title over the property would be only if it
purchases the property in revenue auction. If the sale under the
Revenue Recovery Act, following attachment, is in favour of a
third party, the transfer of title will go accordingly. The mere
attachment wil not result in an encumbrance which would
necessarily deprive the State of its right to collect land revenue.
Under such circumstances, there is no reason why land revenue
shall not be collected in relation to the property in question, in the
account of the Thandaper holder. The writ petition is, therefore,
ordered directing that without prejudice to revenue recovery
proceedings (Extg.P1) or any other revenue recovery proceedings,
the land tax, if any, offered in the name of or on behalf of the
Thandaper account holder, will be collected and receipts issued
accordingly. All other issues on merits are left open.”
It will therefore evidence the fact that the mere attachment will not result in
an encumbrance which would necessarily deprive the State of its right to
collect land revenue.
5. In the light of the above, the application for mutation can be
considered in accordance with law and a decision will be taken and
informed to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment, if in the meanwhile, the revenue

6. W.P.(C).No.27644/2007
-4-
recovery proceedings have not been finalised so far in respect of the
property in question.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. The petitioner will produce
a certified copy of this judgment for compliance. No costs.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
kav/