JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned Ext.P-5 order dated 10.10.2018 issued by the 1st respondent-Tahsildar, whereby in request for grant of mutation of the property, in respect of the property covered by Exts.P-1 & P-4 have been rejected. 2. The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: “(i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P5 order. (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order of direction, directing the respondents to effect mutation in respect of 1.21 ares of land in re-survey No.322/6/1/2 of Peringara Village covered by Exhibit P1 in favour of the petitioner and his wife. (iii) to issue such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and (iv) award costs of the proceedings to the petitioner.” 3. Heard Sri. George Cherian, learned senior counsel instructed by Sri. K.S. Santhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Sr. Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 4. For and on behalf of one Sri. Chacko Varghese, his power of attorney constituted as per Ext.P-2 power of attorney dated 11.09.2006 had executed Ext.P-1 registered sale deed No.140/2017 of SRO, Thiruvalla, whereby the said properties of the principal was conveyed to the petitioner. The said principal of Ext.P-2 power of attorney, i.e. the previous owner of the property had secured mutation of the property in his favour earlier and has also paid basic land tax for the said property as evident from receipt dated 03.04.2013 issued by the 2nd respondent-Village Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted an application for grant of mutation and transfer of registry in his name, in respect of the property covered by Ext.P-1 before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent entertained a doubt in the matter and had referred the matter to the 1st respondent-Tahsildar, who insisted that the petitioner should produce the copy of power of attorney (Ext.P-2) before him, which is referred to in Ext.P-1 deed. The 2nd respondent entertained a doubt in the matter and had referred the matter to the 1st respondent-Tahsildar, who insisted that the petitioner should produce the copy of power of attorney (Ext.P-2) before him, which is referred to in Ext.P-1 deed. After examination of Ext.P-2 power of attorney dated 11.09.2006 and Ext.P-1 deed, the 1st respondent has taken the stand that as the property conveyed by Ext.P-1 was obtained by the prior title holder, only after execution of Ext.P-2 power of attorney, it was incompetent for the said title holder to convey his rights to the petitioner, on the basis of Ext.P-2 power of attorney. Thereupon, the previous title holder, Sri. Chacko Varghese who is permanently settle down in the United States of America had come all the way down to India and had executed Ext.P-4 rectification deed No.2417/2018 before the SRO, Tiruvalla, again paying stamp duty, as if it is a conveyance. In other words, though Ext.P-4 deed is styled only as rectification deed, the prior title holder has again conveyed and transferred the property rights in favour of the petitioner, by paying full stamp duty by treating the transaction as a conveyance. In other words, the 1st respondent has sat in judgment on the vital issue of title, even though he is thoroughly incompetent in law to adjudge on such vested issue. More surprising part is that though the Sub Registrar has registered Ext.P-1 deed, the 1st respondent-Tahsildar would take the stand that he still has the discretion and the jurisdiction to decide whether conveyance of property, as per Ext.P-1 has been done with proper authority and title. It is much later that the prior title holder Sri.Chacko Varghese, who is permanently settled in United States of America had taken the trouble of coming all the way to India and has executed Ext.P-4 deed as deed No.2417/2018 before SRO, Tiruvalla. More surprisingly, the 1st respondent-Tahsildar has now issued impugned Ext.P-4 order stating that the power of attorney as per Ext.P-2 could not have executed Ext.P-1 deed as the subject property was obtained by the principal, after the execution of Ext.P-2 deed, etc. The above said stand taken by the 1st respondent in Ext.P5 rejection order is to say the least, illegal, ultra vires and totally without jurisdiction. The above said stand taken by the 1st respondent in Ext.P5 rejection order is to say the least, illegal, ultra vires and totally without jurisdiction. It has been held in a catena of rulings as in Synudheen v. State of Kerala [ 2013 (1) KHC 437 ] that the Tahsildar cannot decide on the validity of the document and the title of a previous owner and Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules makes it clear beyond the shadow of doubt that mutation effected will not affect the legal rights of the true owner, etc. When Ext.P-1 sale deed has been duly registered by the competent Sub-Registrar concerned, in accordance with the provisions contained in the Registration Act, 1908, it is not open to an official like the respondents, while exercising the powers under Transfer of Registry Rules and grant of mutation to sit in judgment and decide on the issues of title. In case any person who has a legally justiciable grievance, which is recognized in private law, to impugn the validity of Ext.P-1 deed, can certainly raise it provided he has the locus in private law and such issues are to be determined by the civil courts of competent jurisdiction. Those are not matters of enquiry of concern of mutation granting authorities like the respondents. Mutation is made in the records mainly to effect acceptance of land tax, after the property has been conveyed by the previous registered “land holder”. Sec.5 deals with “charge on land tax” Section 5(2) mandates that land tax due on a land shall be collected from the “land holder” concerned in respect of the land. “Land holder” has defined in Sec. 3(3) of the Kerala Land Tax, which reads as follows: “3. Sec.5 deals with “charge on land tax” Section 5(2) mandates that land tax due on a land shall be collected from the “land holder” concerned in respect of the land. “Land holder” has defined in Sec. 3(3) of the Kerala Land Tax, which reads as follows: “3. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a)xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (3) “land holder” means,- (a) in relation to any land held by a cultivating tenant as defined in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964), such cultivating tenant; (b) in relation to any land in the possession of a kanam tenant as defined in the Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955 (XXIV of 1955), such kanam tenant; (c) in relation to any land which has not been surveyed and is not held by a cultivating tenant referred to in sub-clause (a), the proprietor of such land; (d) in relation to any other land, the registered holder for the time being of such land, and includes his legal representatives and assigns and any person who under any law for the time being in force is liable for the payment of public revenue due in respect of the land held by him.” 5. In the instant case, the previous title holder was the registered “land holder” of the land. Hence, clauses.(a), (b) & (c) will not come into play and clause (d) of Sec. 3(3)(d) is attracted. In a case where the registered “land holder” assigns and alienates the property in favour of a third person like the petitioner, then the assignee will stand in the shoe of the “land holder” as understood in Sec. 3(3), by the statutory force of the applicant would be clause (c) of Sec. 3(3). Therefore, by the cumulative impact of Sec. 5(2) r/w Sec. 3(3)(d) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, the competent revenue officials like the respondents are statutorily obliged to collect land tax from the “land holder” as understood in Sec. 3(3). As otherwise, it would amount to nothing but abdication of statutory duties and obligation of the competent revenue officials concerned, which is nothing but dereliction of duties, as it result in loss of revenue. As otherwise, it would amount to nothing but abdication of statutory duties and obligation of the competent revenue officials concerned, which is nothing but dereliction of duties, as it result in loss of revenue. Rule 16 of the Registry of Rules makes it clear like the day light that mere grant of mutation and acceptance of basic land tax will not confer or extinguish title and it is only for arrangement of fiscal purposes and to ensure collection of basic land tax from the “land holder” concerned. When this is the limited scope and ambit of the consideration and enquiry in the matters of acceptance of land tax and Transfer of Registry, this Court fail to understand as to how the 1st respondent would venture into the vested and complex issues of determination of title, which issues could otherwise be raised only by individuals who may have the locus in private law, in which case those matters are the sole look out and province of the civil court concerned. This Court is now a days confronted with a series of cases of similar nature, where the request for mutation and acceptance of basic land tax have been automatically rejected or kept pending and very often it is rejected on the ground of alleged lack of title, which is forcing many aggrieved citizens to approach this Court. 6. In the process of exercise of the limited discretionary functions under the Kerala Land Tax Act and the Transfer of Registry Rules, the competent revenue officials cannot convert themselves from the zone of their allotted statutory functions to the role of determining the title of parties which if permitted would amount to permitting such revenue officials concerned to transgress into the exclusive province and jurisdiction of the civil courts. This would be a serious erosion of the role of law based governance system and would result in loss of confidence in the public about the constitutional based government mechanism. If this is permitted, then it will transgress the sacrosanct constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. 7. In the light of the above said discussion, it is ordered and declared that the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned rejection orders as per Ext.P-5 is illegal, ultra vires and totally without jurisdiction and the same will stand set aside. 7. In the light of the above said discussion, it is ordered and declared that the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned rejection orders as per Ext.P-5 is illegal, ultra vires and totally without jurisdiction and the same will stand set aside. Respondents 1 & 2 shall forthwith take up the request of the petitioner for grant of mutation and transfer of registry and will grant the said request of mutation and will accept the basic land tax from the petitioner and will forthwith issue tax receipts in that regard to the petitioner, without any delay, at any rate, within a period of one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition (Civil) will stand disposed of.