A.HABEEB v. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALACODE VILALGE (TB Junction), Punalur P.O., Kollam District

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. N. Ravindran
Judgment Date: 2012-12-17
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to receive land tax from the petitioner in respect of the properties mentioned and to issue a receipt if tendered. The court notes the mortgage principle stated in Hazeena v. Tahsildar and clarifies that mere anticipation of attachment does not bar tax collection. It also permits the tax receipts or possession certificates to indicate mortgage in favor of the third party where applicable.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; land tax to be accepted and receipt issued; endorsement in receipts/possession certificates permissible if land is mortgaged.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

A. HABEEB, S/O Aliyar Rawther, Ratna Villa, T.C.2/3201 Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram District (from Alankarath, Panangodu, Punalur P.O, Kollam District)

Respondents

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALACODE VILALGE, TB Junction, Punalur P.O, Kollam District, PIN-691305

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri B. Mohanlal

Counsels for Respondents

• Government Pleader SMT. Sanjeetha

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition filed by A. Habeeb challenges the refusal of the Village Officer, Valacode Village, to accept land tax on multiple parcels of land in Kollam District on the ground that the property might be subject to attachment by the Central Bank of India. The petitioner, owner of extensive land holdings in Sy. Nos. 632/1B/2, 634/1/10, 634/1/19, 633/1, 684/1-B, 684/1B/7 and 684/1-A/4/5 in Valacode, seeks an order directing the Village Officer to accept land tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. The respondents contend that an attachment order in OA No. 305 of 2012, passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in an OA filed by the Central Bank of India, justifies withholding tax. The court cites the decision in Hazeena v. Tahsildar (2010) (3) KLT 278, which held that tax cannot be refused merely because a property is mortgaged or subject to a mortgage; a mortgage runs with the land and does not bar tax collection. The judgment clarifies that the landholder must pay tax, and payment does not impede the bank’s rights. It also permits endorsement in receipts or possession certificates indicating mortgage in favour of the bank. Ultimately, the court allows the petition and directs the respondent to receive land tax if tendered and to issue a receipt, ensuring revenue collection while acknowledging mortgage conditions where applicable.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Mortgage runs with the land
Land tax is revenue to the State; landholder pays tax

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued that land tax cannot be refused merely because the property is under mortgage or likely to be attached by a credit institution. He sought compulsory acceptance of land tax and issuance of a tax receipt, asserting his liability under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and that prior payment of tax is not a bar to tax collection or to the bank’s actions.

Contentions of Respondents

The Government Pleader contended that attachment in OA No. 305 of 2012 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal necessitated withholding tax, and that the bank’s rights should be protected; however, revenue collection cannot be thwarted without lawful basis.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Hazeena v. Tahsildar	2010 (3) KLT 278	Positive	Court relied on this decision to hold that land tax cannot be refused solely because the property is subject to a mortgage; mortgage does not bar tax collection.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/26TH AGRAHAYANA 1934 WP(C).No. 24759 of 2012 (T) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- A.HABEEB, S/O.ALIYAR RAWTHER,RATNA VILLA,T.C.2/3201 PATTOM.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISRTRICT (FROM ALANKARATH,PANANGODU,PUNALUR.P.O KOLLAM DISTRICT). BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL RESPONDENT(S): -------------- THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VALACODE VILALGE,T.B.JUNCTION,PUNALUR.P.O KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-691305. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SANJEETHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **W.P.(C) No. 24759/2012** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2009 TO THE PETITIONER** - **EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 1998 TO THE PETITIONER** - **EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD 2008 TO THE PETITIONER** - **EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD 15.9.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** vps ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN** , **J.** ## **--------------------------W.P.(C) No.24759 OF 2012 -------------------------Dated this the 17[th] day of December, 2012** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is the owner of 3.64 ares of land in Sy.No.632/1B/2, 4.45 ares of land in Sy.No.634/1/10, 17 ares of land in Sy.No.634/1/19, 8.09 ares of land in Sy.No.633/1, 30.500 ares of land in Sy.No.684/1-B and 19.500 ares of land in Sy.No.684/1B/7 and 6.07 ares of land in Sy.No.684/1-A/4/5 of Valacode Village, Pathanapuram Taluk, Kollam District. This writ petition is filed for an order directing the respondent to accept property tax from the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid items of immovable properties. It is contended that when the petitioner went to the Village Office to remit land tax, the respondent declined to accept it on the ground that the Central Bank of India has taken steps to proceed against the property to recover the loans availed by the petitioner. 2. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, Smt.Sanjeetha, learned Government Pleader submitted that the Central Bank of India, Peroorkada branch has filed O.A.No.305 of 2012 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Kerala and in that application an order of attachment was passed on 17.7.2012 in I.A.No.1979 of 2012 and that was the reason why land tax was not received when it was tendered. WPC No.24759/2012 2 3. The issue raised by the petitioner is covered in his favour by the decision of this Court in _**Hazeena v. Tahsildar**_ 2010 (3) KLT 278. In the said case it was held that the land tax cannot be refused on the ground that the property was subject matter of a mortgage. In the said judgment it was held as follows: _“6. None of the parties have been able to point out to me any provision of law, which prohibits acceptance of tax in respect of a property when the property is under a mortgage to a creditor by either the owner of the property or a former owner of the property. It is settled law that the mortgage runs with the land and transfer of ownership after the creation of the mortgage does not affect the validity of the mortgage itself. If a prospective purchaser is willing to purchase the property with the mortgage, there is no prohibition for the owner to sell the property subject of course to the mortgage. Such sale does not in any way affect the rights of the mortgagee for enforcing the mortgage and he can at any time enforce the mortgage in accordance with the provisions of the law applicable. If that be so, the fact that a property is the subject matter of a mortgage does not empower the Village Officer to refuse to accept land tax. Land tax is revenue to the State. The person liable to pay tax is the land holder as defined under the Kerala Land Tax Act. Only the land holder can pay tax and not any body else. Tax has also to be paid every year before the date fixed as per the Act. If the land holder does not pay tax or the Village Officer refuses to accept tax from the land holders, the loser will be the State exchequer. There is no reason why the State should lose or postpone receipt of land tax simply because a land is subject to a mortgage. In fact it is the duty of the Village Officer to see that revenue due to the State in respect of the land under his jurisdiction is properly collected and credited to the State exchequer. Therefore, I do not think that the Village Officer can validly refuse to accept tax in respect of a property simply because the land is subject matter of a mortgage. As such, I am satisfied that the 2[nd] respondent was not correct in refusing to accept tax in respect of the property in question from the petitioner. Accordingly, there would be a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to allow the petitioner to pay tax in respect of the property in question. However, it would be open to respondents 1 or 2 to endorse in the tax receipt issued to the petitioner that the land is subject to a mortgage in favour of the 3[rd] respondent. They can do so in the possession certificate also, if any, issued in respect of the said property._ _The writ petition is disposed of as above.”_ WPC No.24759/2012 3 4. In the instant case, the property is admittedly not mortgaged in favour of the Central Bank of India. As the petitioner is admittedly the owner of the land, he is liable to pay tax as stipulated in the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. The fact that he had paid land tax earlier is also not in dispute. In such circumstances, the mere fact that the Central Bank of India is likely to proceed against the petitioner's property is not a reason to refuse to receive the land tax in respect of the property belonging to the petitioner. The payment of land tax by the petitioner will not stand in the way of the Central Bank of India from proceeding against the petitioner or his property. I accordingly allow the writ petition and direct the respondent to receive land tax from the petitioner in respect of the properties referred to above, if tendered, and to issue a receipt. **P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge.** **vps.** WPC No.24759/2012 4 WPC No.24759/2012 5