JUNUS BRAYAN Vs. TAHSILDHAR TALUK OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to effect mutation in favour of the petitioners and to accept land tax for the properties covered by Ext.P1 settlement deed.

(2.) The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioners are the owners in possession of 1/80/9 hectares of land comprised in Sy.No.298/1A1A1A (Old Sy.Nos. 4712, 4711 and 4713) of Ambalavayal Village, Sultan Bathery Taluk, Wayanad District obtained as per Ext.P1 settlement deed executed by their father. When the petitioners sought to effect mutation and to pay land tax for the property, they were informed by the 2nd respondent that the 3rd respondent, the Income Tax Department had attached a portion of the said property for alleged dues of the predecessor in interest, their father.

(3.) Thereupon, the 1st petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, regarding the alleged attachment and the 2nd respondent served him with Ext.P3 proceedings dtd. 18/11/2019 of the 3rd respondent along with Ext.P2 letter of the 2nd respondent. In Ext.P2 letter, the 1st petitioner was informed that an attachment is in effect in respect of the subject property as per proceedings dtd. 18/11/2019. Ext.P3 is an intimation issued to the 2nd respondent Village Officer intimating that as part of the recovery proceedings to realize the income tax due they propose to permanently attach some of the immovable properties of the defaulter, who is the father of the petitioners and requested the 2nd respondent to make arrangement to identify the location of the properties mentioned in the said communication. Petitioners submitted that they cannot put the property to any effective use since mutation has not been effected and the petitioners are unable to remit tax for the said property. Petitioners would further contend that it is settled law that mutation and collection of land tax being only for fiscal purposes does not in any manner affect the title of the property and therefore any attachment on the property cannot be a bar to effect mutation and to collect land tax for the property. Petitioners rely on the judgment in Laila v. Village Officer, Thrikkovilvattom Village Office and Others [2019 (4) KHC 799] in support of their contention. It is aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the 2nd respondent to effect mutation and to accept land tax for the properties covered by Ext.P1 settlement deed that the petitioners have approached this court.