RR നടപടികൾ ഭൂ നികുതി സ്വികരിയ്ക്കുന്നതിന് തടസ്സമല്ല എന്ന ഹൈക്കോടതി വിധി-Pending RR proceeding is not a ban to receive land tax uploaded by T James Joseph Adhikarathil

1. Kerala High Court
Rimmy vs State Of Kerala & Others
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:
WPC.27644/2007
- 2 -
Rimmy vs State Of Kerala & Others
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/155908850/ 1

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
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 W.P.(C).No.27644/2007 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.
Rimmy vs State Of Kerala & Others
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/155908850/ 2

3. 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 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.
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 W.P.(C).No.27644/2007
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/
Rimmy vs State Of Kerala & Others
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/155908850/ 3