JOHNY THOMAS Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner in title and possession of property having an extent of 16 cents comprised in Re Survey Nos.161/17, 161/18 and 154/2 of Vayakkara Village, Kannur District. According to the petitioner, the vendor of the petitioner was remitting tax in respect of the above property and the said fact is evident from Exhibit P4. After purchase of the property as aforesaid, the petitioner approached the revenue authorities and based on his request, Exhibit P5 possession certificate was issued in respect of the entire extent. It is stated that the petitioner has effected mutation in his favour and he has been paying tax for the entire extent of property vide Thandappper No.3160 of Vayakkara village. The grievance of the petitioner is that out of the total extent of 16 cents, the 3rd respondent is presently accepting tax only in respect of property comprised in Re- Survey Nos.161/17 and 161/18 and he is refusing to accept the tax for the property covered under Re-Survey No.154/2 on the ground that it falls under the category of excess land. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court seeking directions to the 3rd respondent to accept land tax from the year 2009 - 2010 onwards for the land in resurvey No. 154/2 and to issue possession Certificate in respect of the said property.

(2.) I have heard Sri. Rosin Joseph, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader.

(3.) I have considered the submissions advanced. S.5 of Land Tax Act, 1961 provides for charge of land tax. The said provision provides that a person in whose name a land is registered, has a bounden duty to pay the tax due under the provisions of the Act and there is a corresponding duty to collect the tax due on a property. When the landholder offers to pay the basic tax due on a land, the Officer entrusted with the duty to collect the same has no authority to refuse it. Furthermore, Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 makes it clear that the summary enquiry under the Rules, is only an arrangement for fiscal purposes and does not affect the legal right of any person in respect of any land covered by the decision in transfer of registry cases.