HAZEENA Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 4th respondent obtained 44 cents of land by Ext.P4 certificate of purchase issued under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, by the Pattambi Land Tribunal-I. Out of those 44 cents, the 4th respondent settled 10 cents in favour of his son Pramod. Then by subsequent transactions, the husband of the petitioner became the owner in possession of the said 10 cents. The petitioner's husband executed Ext.Pl sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Thus the petitioner became the owner of 10 cents of property in survey No. 3/12 of Muthuthala Village. According to the petitioner, after purchase by the petitioner's husband and even prior that, land tax was being accepted from the land holder. But when the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent for paying tax, the 2nd respondent refused to accept tax on the ground that the property has been mortgaged to the 3rd respondent-Pattambi Service Co-operative Bank. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner's husband purchased this land after making all reasonable enquiries in respect of the encumbrances in the property and it is after satisfying himself that there was no encumbrance in the property that the petitioner's husband purchased the property. She would further submit that even otherwise the 2nd respondent cannot refuse to accept the tax on the ground that that there is a mortgage in respect of the property in favour of the 3rd respondent. According to her, mortgage as such does not affect the ownership of the property and insofar as only the landholder can pay tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act, if the petitioner does not pay land tax in respect of the property, the State will not get revenue in respect of the property. As such, by the action of the 2nd respondent, the State is the loser. Therefore, the 2nd respondent cannot refuse to accept land tax in respect of the property, is the contention raised.

(3.) The 3rd respondent would contend that although Ext.P4 mentions 44 cents, the 4th respondent possessed only 39 cents and that is why the 4th respondent executed a sale deed in respect of only 39 cents. They would, therefore, submit that the 10 cents which is in the possession of the petitioner are also included in the 39 cents. They would further submit that when the mortgage is subsisting, the petitioner is not entitled to pay land tax in respect of the property.