RAHULAN Vs. TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner purchased an item of property having an extent of 81 Ares and 10 sq meters in Resurvey No.428/1 of Anchal village from a certain Gopinathan Nair as per Exhibit P1 sale deed executed and registered on 02 /11/2020. The petitioner approached the revenue authorities and after following the procedure under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, effected mutation and he was allotted a Thandaper number as 9995. Being the holder of land, he proceeded to remit land tax. Exhibit P2 is the land tax receipt issued by the second respondent on 18.12.2020. However, without notice to the petitioner, by Exhibit P5 proceedings, the Thandaper number allotted was cancelled and the earlier Thandapper was restored. This was for the reason that the property was attached by the Family court on a petition filed by the daughter-in-law of his vendor. Ext.P4 is a letter issued by the 2nd respondent informing the petitioner that the Thandaper number allotted to him was being cancelled as per the directions issued by the Tahsildar. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash Exhibits P4 and P5 and for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to retain the property covered in Exhibit P1 in the Transfer of Registry notwithstanding the attachment.

(2.) Sri.Arun Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner purchased the property on 2.11.2020. He would refer to Exhibit P6 Encumbrance certificate and it was urged that the attachment of the Family court was registered only on 4.11.2020, much after the registration of Exhibit P1 deed. According to the learned counsel, the relevant statutory Rules do not confer any powers to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to initiate any suo moto proceeding to cancel the Thandapper as has been done in the instant case. The fact that the petitioner was not put on notice and his version was not heard was also highlighted by the learned counsel. Finally, it is submitted that a subsequent attachment would not affect the right of the petitioner, who as the land holder, is bound to remit land tax as per the provisions of the Land Tax Act.

(3.) The learned Government pleader on instructions submitted that no notice was served on the petitioner before proceeding to pass Exhibit P5 order.