K. T. PRASAD Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed with the following averments. The petitioner is one among the 17 legal heirs of late Sulochana, who had acquired ownership and possession over landed property in Survey No.100/1, Re-survey No.90/3A of Kottooly Village as per registered Janmam Assignment Deed No.1894 of 1951 dated 20.08.1951. Major portions of the property was acquired for widening of Kozhikode - Mavoor Road and the remaining property in the possession and enjoyment of Sulochana was only 2 cents. One among the legal heirs of late Sulochana filed O.S. No.465 of 2007 before the Principal Munsiff - I Court, Kozhikode for partition and separate possession of the property. The remaining 16 legal heirs were made defendants in the suit and the petitioner was the 4 th defendant therein. During the pendency of the suit the defendants filed a joint statement to the effect that they had no objection in allotting their shares to the petitioner. Based on the joint statement a preliminary decree was passed allotting the entire property to the share of the petitioner.

(2.) The additional 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that he is the President of the Indian National Congress (I) Kottooly South Unit Committee. The 3 rd respondent challenges the petitioner's claim of having title over the property and goes on to say that late Sulochana had donated the 2 cents to the Indian National Congress (I) in the year 1960 and a two storied building has been constructed therein. It is the contention of the 3rd respondent that the legal heirs of Sulochana had colluded together in obtaining the final decree. On coming to know about the decree the 3rd respondent has filed O.S. No.284 of 2012 before the Principal Munsiff's Court - I, Kozhikode and on the suit being dismissed has filed A.S. No.151 of 2019 before the District Court, Kozhikode and that the appeal is posted for hearing on 17.03.2020. The 3 rd respondent has also produced Ext.R3(a), a notice issued by the 1 st respondent regarding a hearing to be conducted based on the petitioners application for effecting mutation in his name.

(3.) Heard Sri. P. K. Aboobacker, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. R. Sudhish learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader. I find that the petitioner having submitted an application for mutation and having made a request for remittance of tax on the strength of the final decree granted by the competent Civil Court, the 1 st respondent is bound to consider the claim and take a decision thereon. Having issued Ext.R3(a) notice, the 1 st respondent should complete the proceedings after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 3 rd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision in Laila v. Village Officer, Thrikkovilvattom Village Office and Others [2019 (4) KHC 799] wherein this Court had deprecated the delay on the part of the Revenue Officials in completing the proceedings with respect to mutation. It is submitted that pending the decision on the application for effecting mutation, the petitioner may be permitted to remit the land tax for the property. The learned counsel for the 3 rd respondent would submit that unless and until mutation is effected in the petitioner's name, he has no right to pay land tax.