Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J
1. The petitioners claim to be the owners in possession of the properties covered by Exts.P1 and P2. They have been paying tax for the properties till 2015 as evident from Exts.P3(a) to P3(e). The grievance of the petitioners is that, the 6th respondent is not accepting tax from the petitioners thereafter. It is in these circumstances the petitioners have approached this Court.
2. I have heard Smt. Anagha Lakshmy Raman, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Deepa V., the learned Government Pleader.
3. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that, after resurvey, a portion of the property of the petitioners was found to be puramboke land and that is the reason why the 6th respondent is not accepting land tax after 2015.
4. Exts. P1 and P2 prove the petitioners' title over the properties. The petitioners were paying land tax till 2015. If on resurvey the Government found that the portion of the properties of the petitioners is puramboke, it is up to them to take steps to resume the said land. The mere fact that the property has been shown as puramboke land is not a ground to refuse to accept land tax from the petitioners so long as the properties are in their possession. Hence, the 6th respondent is directed to continue to accept land tax from the petitioners.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
