JUDGMENT : As both these cases pertain to the very same property, both these cases are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment. W.P(C).No. 38354/2016 The three petitioners herein claim that they are co-owners in respect of the extent of property coming to 117.48 acres in Survey No.266/1 of Vythiri Village, Vythiri Taluk, in Wayanad Revenue District, covered by Ext.P-1 Janmam sale deed No.3357/1999 dated 11.10.1999 of SRO Kalpetta. It is the case of the petitioners that prior to Ext.P-1 deed dated 11.10.1999, the janmam rights of the said property belonged to Thoriambath Tharavadu and the petitioners had purchased the janmam rights in respect of the abovesaid property having an extent of 117.48 acres as per Ext.P-1 deed dated 11.10.1999. That later, the petitioners had sold off some of the portions of the said property and the remaining extent held by the petitioners comes to 65.33 acres in re-survey No.266/1 of Vythiri village. That since 30.10.1965 onwards, M/s.Cadbury India Ltd. was having lease hold rights in respect of a large extent of property pertaining to the same janmam right holder, which was also inclusive of the abovesaid land covered by Ext.P-1. After the execution and registration of Ext.P-1 deed dated 11.10.1999, the petitioners had persuaded the lessee M/s. Cardbury India Ltd. to surrender the lease and in that regard Ext.P-2 deed of surrender of the lease bearing document No.2313/2002 dated 14.11.2002 was duly registered before the SRO, Vythiri. 2. It is the further case of the petitioners that the stamp duty payable as on the date of execution of Ext.P-2 surrender deed (viz., 14.11.2002), was prescribed in terms of Art.54 of the Schedule of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. The said Art.54 as it stood then reads as follows: “54. Surrender of lease- (a)when the duty with which the lease is chargeable does not exceed one hundred rupees: The duty with which such lease is chargeable. (b) in any other case: Hundred rupees” (It is pointed out that the abovesaid amount of stamp duty of Rs.100/-in clause (b) of above was later substituted by Kerala Finance Act, 2013 (State Act 20.09.2013) w.e.f. 01.04.2013, whereby the said stamp duty is now Rs.250/-). The petitioners had accordingly paid the stamp duty as well as the registration fee in respect of the registration of Ext.P-2 deed of lease surrender dated 14.11.2002, with the SRO, Vythiri. The petitioners had accordingly paid the stamp duty as well as the registration fee in respect of the registration of Ext.P-2 deed of lease surrender dated 14.11.2002, with the SRO, Vythiri. It appears that thereafter a vigilance enquiry was initiated at the behest of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau of the State Government, wherein it was alleged that the petitioners had deliberately paid lower stamp duty by showing the transaction covered by Ext.P-2 only as a deed of surrender and that the 1st petitioner herein had earlier entered into an agreement for sale pertaining to the leasehold rights of the said property with M/s Cadbury India Ltd. and the proposed sale consideration shown in that agreement for sale was Rs.2.7 crores. The objections were thus raised that the petitioners should have actually executed a sale deed for the abovesaid transaction, instead of Ext.P-2 deed of surrender and that therefore, the petitioners ought to have paid stamp duty in respect of the sale consideration of Rs.2.7 crores and that they have thus deliberately evaded stamp duty etc. It appears that the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau had conducted an enquiry in which the petitioners were never given a reasonable opportunity to participate in order to state their versions and to contest the objections. The report of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau was duly submitted to the State Government authorities, wherein it was allegedly found that the petitioners had deliberately evaded stamp duty in the abovesaid transaction as they had executed and registered Ext.P-2 surrender deed, by paying the stamp duty only for lease surrender, when as a matter of fact they should have executed and registered a sale deed in respect of the said leasehold rights with M/s Cadbury India Ltd. and that the petitioners have thus caused loss of revenue to the State on account of such alleged evasion of stamp duty etc. A copy of the said report of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau has not been given to the petitioners till date. A copy of the said report of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau has not been given to the petitioners till date. Thereafter, the matter came up for consideration of the Government in the administrative department concerned, viz., the Taxes Department and without any prior notice or reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, the Government in the Taxes Department had issued impugned Ext.P-3 proceedings dated 19.11.2015, wherein, a copy of the factual report of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau in vigilance case No.VC4/09/WYD was forwarded to the rd respondent who was directed by the 2nd respondent to take steps through revenue recovery proceedings, so as to recover the evaded stamp duty and registration fee from the three petitioners herein etc. Thereafter, it appears that the 3rd respondent-Inspector General of Police had issued Ext.P-4 order dated 04.10.2016, whereby he had directed the 4th respondent-District Registrar (General), Wayanad to take necessary steps for recovery of the evaded stamp duty amount from the three petitioners etc., so as to comply with the directions of the Government in the impugned Ext.P3 dated 19.11.2015. Later, the 4th respondent-District Registrar (General), Wayanad has issued the impugned Ext.P-5 proceedings order No.M2 245/2015 dated 19.11.2016, whereby, he has quantified the amount of the alleged stamp duty evaded, in respect of the transaction covered by Ext.P-2 as Rs.33,75,000/-and the evaded registration duty as Rs.33,750/-and ordering that those amounts be recovered from the three petitioners herein and that in case, they do not remit the said amounts, necessary steps should be taken to ensure that the said amounts are recovered through proceedings of the Revenue Recovery Act. These orders at Exts.P3 to P-5 that are essentially under challenge in this W.P(C). The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) filed on 30.11.2016 are as follows: “1. Quash all proceedings by way of and pursuant to Exhibits P3, P4 and P5 as illegal, without jurisdiction, and void 2. Prohibit the respondents from initiating or continuing any proceedings for the recovery of any amount from the petitioner in connection with or arising out of the execution of Exhibit P2 surrender deed. 3. Any other appropriate writ, order or directions as this Hon'ble court deem fit on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and allow this petition with cost.” 3. 3. Any other appropriate writ, order or directions as this Hon'ble court deem fit on the fact and in the circumstances of the case and allow this petition with cost.” 3. Heard Sri.B.G.Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Sr.Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 5. 4. There appears to be no serious dispute with the factual aspect that the petitioners were never given any reasonable opportunity of being heard prior to the issuance of Exts.P-3, P-4 and P-5 issued by respondents 2, 3 and 4 respectively. So also there is no dispute that a copy of the report of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau in VC4/09/WYD referred to in Ext.P-3 dated 19.11.2015 was also never given to the petitioners prior to the issuance of the impugned Ext.P-3 proceedings. It is beyond dispute that the effect of the impugned orders in Exts.P-3 to P-5 is to inflict grave and serious adverse civil consequences to the petitioners. Therefore, it is trite that the matter requires interdiction on the sole ground of flagrant violation of the elementary principles of natural justice and fairness. 5. That apart, both sides have elaborately argued on various aspects of the matter. Sri.B.G.Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the averment in para.9 on page.4 of the counter affidavit dated 27.03.2017 filed by the 4th respondent that there was a sale agreement between the petitioners herein and the then lessee M/s Cadbury India Ltd. is absolutely incorrect and factually wrong. But that the petitioners could learn that the father of the 3rd petitioner, had entered into an agreement for sale with the then lessee M/s Cadbury India Ltd., for proposed purchase of their leasehold rights and the father (Sri.George John) of the 3rd petitioner is now no more etc. But that the petitioners could learn that the father of the 3rd petitioner, had entered into an agreement for sale with the then lessee M/s Cadbury India Ltd., for proposed purchase of their leasehold rights and the father (Sri.George John) of the 3rd petitioner is now no more etc. The contention of the petitioners is that as they had purchased the janmam rights in respect of the abovesaid property as per Ext.P-1 sale deed dated 11.10.1999, they legally stepped into the shoes of the lesser and therefore, there was no question of the petitioners being the lessors purchasing the lease hold rights from the lessee and that therefore, they were advised that the proper course of action in law is to secure a deed of surrender of the lease from the then lessee M/s Cadbury India Ltd. Thereafter, there was a meeting of minds between the petitioners-lessors and the lessee M/s Cadbury India Ltd. who had thereupon agreed to surrender the lease and thus executed and got registered Ext.P-2 deed of lease surrender dated 14.11.2002, before the SRO, Vythiri, for which the prescribed stamp duty in terms of Art.54(b) of the Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1959 was also duly paid along with the requisite registration fees. 6. The petitioners would submit that the contention of the respondents State authorities that the petitioners were obliged in law to have duly executed the sale deed with the then lessee M/s Cadbury India Ltd., instead of Ext.P-2 deed of lease surrender etc. is absolutely untenable and unsustainable. The petitioners would point out that since they had purchased the janmam rights of the said property as per Ext.P-1 as early as on 11.10.1999, they had stepped into the shoes of the janmam right holder (lessor) and therefore there is no question of the lessor getting a sale deed whereby the lessee could convey the leasehold rights to the petitioners who are in law, the lessor and that such a transaction is absolutely misconceived and unwarranted in law. Further, the purchase of leasehold rights through a sale deed from the lessee (M/s Cadbury India Ltd.), as suggested by the respondent State authorities, would also have been in flagrant violation of the statutory prohibition engrafted in Sec.74 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 which mandates that no new lease should be created in respect of such properties after the cut off date of 01.04.1964. On this basis, the petitioners would contend that in law, if the lessee is surrendering the lease hold rights, the provisions of the Kerala Stamp Act, more particularly Art.54 of its Schedule stipulate imposition of stamp duty for such a transaction only in the manner stated herein above and such a prescription is not on the basis of the consideration that may be paid for getting the lease surrendered. The petitioners have thus argued that the respondents as well as the vigilance authorities have totally gone off on a tangent and have clearly misdirected themselves in facts and law and have arrived at factually and legally untenable conclusions, by contending that the petitioners were obliged in law to have executed a sale deed instead of Ext.P-2 lease surrender deed and that they have thus evaded stamp duty etc. 7. Further, Sri.B.G.Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 (State government authorities), have no jurisdiction whatsoever, under the provisions of the Kerala Stamp Act and Rules framed thereunder to issue an order on the basis of Ext.P-3, which in substance is an original proceedings, finding that there is evasion of stamp duty by the petitioners and directing that it should be recovered by way of revenue recovery proceedings, etc. The petitioners have thus taken this Court through various provisions of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 and would contend that the only powers available in respect of contingencies conceived for alleged evasion of stamp duty are those in Secs.45A and 45B of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, as per which provisions, the power is exclusively vested with the District Collector concerned and that too, only after satisfaction of the requisite jurisdictional factual parameters stipulated in those statutory provisions. Further that Sec.45A of the said Act deals with cases where the stamp duty is paid less than the prescribed fair value and Sec.45B deals with cases of evasion of stamp duty in respect of the factual contingencies specifically enumerated therein. 8. The petitioners have also pointed out that the only power conferred on the Government is under Sec.54 of the Kerala Stamp Act which deals with control of the Government or such other authority in respect of the powers exercisable by the Collector under Chapters IV and V and for making reference of statement of case etc. 9. 8. The petitioners have also pointed out that the only power conferred on the Government is under Sec.54 of the Kerala Stamp Act which deals with control of the Government or such other authority in respect of the powers exercisable by the Collector under Chapters IV and V and for making reference of statement of case etc. 9. The learned Senior Government Pleader has also elaborately taken this Court’s attention to various averments and submissions made in the counter affidavit dated 27.03.2017 filed by the 4th respondent and would submit various aspects on the merits of the case. It is not necessary to burden this judgment regarding the various said contentions on the merits of the matter, in the light of the view that is proposed to be taken by this Court for the disposal of this case, taking note of the indisputable fact that there has been flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and fairness in the issuance of the orders as per impugned Exts.P-3 to P-5. 10. As it is not in dispute that there has been flagrant violation of principles of natural justice on account of the abovesaid aspects stated herein above, it is only to be held that the impugned proceedings at Exts.P-3 to P-5 are ultra vires and illegal and are liable to be interdicted in this proceeding of judicial review. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned order at Ext.P-3 will stand set aside. The proceedings at Exts.P-4 and P-5 are only consequential orders which are purely dependent on Ext.P-3, and so it is consequentially ordered that the impugned proceedings at Exts.P-4 and P-5 will also stand set aside. 11. Sec.54 under Chapter VI of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 reads as follows: “54. Control of and statement of case to the Government or other authority specified by the Government.-(1) The powers exercisable by a Collector under Chapter IV and Chapter V and under clause (a) of the first proviso to Section 27 shall in all cases be subject to the control of the Government or such other authority as may be specified by Government in this behalf. (2) If any Collector acting under Section 31, Section 39 or Section 40, feels doubt as to the amount of duty with which any instrument is chargeable, he may draw up a statement of the case and refer it with his own opinion thereon, for the decision of the Government or such other authority as may be specified by Government in this behalf. (3) The Government or such authority shall consider the case and send a copy of its decision to the Collector, who shall proceed to assess and charge the duty, if any, in conformity with such decision.” A reading of sub-section(1) of Sec.54 would make it clear that what has been stipulated in that provision by the legislature is that the powers exercised by the Collector under Chapters IV and V and under clause (a) of the first proviso to Sec.27 shall in all cases be subject to the control of the Government or such other authority as may be specified by the Government in that behalf. Sub-section (2) deals with the scenario of conferring power on the Collector to draw up a statement of the case and refer it with his own opinion thereon, for the decision of the Government or such other authority as may be specified by the Government and sub-section (3) thereof deals with the scenario of the Government or such other specified authority considering such case record under sub section 2, for their decision. Sub-sections 2 and 3 are not relevant in the facts of this case. Sub-section (1) of Sec.54 confers powers of control on the State Government or such other authorities as to be specified by them, over the powers exercisable by the Collector under Chapters IV and V and under clause (a) of Sec.27. Sec.45B is under Chapter IV of the Kerala Stamp Act and the said Section reads as follows: “45B. Instruments undervalued how to be dealt with.-(1) If the Registering Officer, while registering any instrument transferring any property, has reason to believe that the value of the property or the consideration, as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the value or consideration, as the case may be, and the proper duty payable thereon. (2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section(1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, by order, determine the value of the property or the consideration and the duty aforesaid; and the deficient amount of duty, if any, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty and, on the payment of such duty, the Collector shall endorse a certificate of such payment on the instrument under his seal and signature. (3) The Collector may, suo motu, within two years from the date of registration of any instrument not already referred to him under sub-section (1), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of its value or consideration, as the case may be, and the duty payable thereon, and if after such examination, he has reason to believe that the value or consideration has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the value or consideration and the duty aforesaid in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section (2); and the deficient amount of duty, if any, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty and, on the payment of such duty, the Collector shall endorse a certificate of such payment on the instrument under his seal and signature. (4) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) may appeal to the District Court within whose jurisdiction the property transferred is situate. (5) An appeal under sub-section (4) shall be filed within thirty days of the date of the order sought to be appealed against. (6) The District Court shall hear and dispose of the appeal in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act.” Therefore, it is clear from a reading of the provisions contained in Sec.45B and Sec.54(1), that the powers under Sec.54(1) are only powers of control conferred on the Government over the original powers exercisable by the Collector under the abovesaid Chapter and provisions. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the powers of control which in substance and essence are powers of supervision and regulation, which could be exercised only over the exercise of original exercise of powers by the statutory authorities concerned. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the powers of control which in substance and essence are powers of supervision and regulation, which could be exercised only over the exercise of original exercise of powers by the statutory authorities concerned. The respondents do not have a case that the matter in relation to Ext.P-3 was already in the seisin and consideration of the District Collector, prior to the issuance of Ext.P-3. Therefore, in the light of these aspects, it is only to be held that the said powers of supervision and control conferred on the Government under Sec.54(1) of the Kerala Stamp Act could not have been exercised for dealing the scenario covered by the impugned Ext.P-3 order. By Ext.P-3 order, the State Government has assumed the powers of the original authority, as if it has such powers, to do so. In a factual scenario where jurisdiction could be exercised by the original authority like the District Collector in terms of the provisions contained in Chapters IV and V or under clause (a) of the first proviso to Sec.27, then such powers exercised by the original authority under those statutory provisions would be under the control and supervision of the Government in terms of the provisions contained in Sec.54(1). In a case like this, at best, the State Government, after receipt of the report from the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, could have simply forwarded the matter to the designated original authority for its consideration, whether or not any action is warranted under the provisions of the Kerala Stamp Act and Rules framed thereunder, without dictating in any way, as to the manner and the method of its decision making process etc. At best, if such a simple direction had been issued, it could have been justified that the Government had the power under Sec.54(1) by way of control and supervision etc. That is not the case in the instant one, where respondents 1 and 2 have simply assumed that they have the original jurisdiction to deal with the matter to issue the impugned directions at Ext.P-3. Therefore, it is only to be held that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Government did not have jurisdiction to act in the matter, as has been ordered in Ext.P-3. Moreover the 1st respondent has already taken a view on the merits of the case in Ext.P-3. Therefore, it is only to be held that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Government did not have jurisdiction to act in the matter, as has been ordered in Ext.P-3. Moreover the 1st respondent has already taken a view on the merits of the case in Ext.P-3. Since the merits of the matter are not in any manner determined by this Court in these proceedings, it is however ordered that it will be open to the 2nd respondent (the Government in the Taxes department), to forward all the papers and records including the vigilance enquiry report, relatable to Ext.P-3 to the 5th respondent-District Collector for his examination and while doing so, the respondent State Government authority shall not dictate in any manner as to how the said statutory functionary should exercise his discretion. Those are matters fully within the domain of that statutory functionary and otherwise any such direction to the contrary would amount to subjecting the statutory functionary to dictation. After receipt of the entire records as aforestated, the th respondent-District Collector may consider the entire aspects of the case and if he is convinced that he could proceed further so as to propose any action against the petitioners, in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Stamp Act and the Rules framed thereunder, he will be at liberty to issue notices to petitioners and said notices shall broadly indicate the line of action i.e. proposed to be taken in such proceedings. In such an eventuality, the 5th respondent-Collector will forward attested copies of the entire papers and records given by the 1st respondent-State Government and also copy of the vigilance enquiry report to the petitioners, along with the notices. After receipt of such notices, the petitioners may submit their written submissions in the matter and the 5th respondent thereafter shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners to decide on the issue as to whether he has jurisdiction to proceed in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Stamp Act and the Rules framed thereunder, taking into account the factual scenario covered in this case. Thereafter, the 5th respondent should take a considered decision whether or not he has jurisdiction or whether there is any bar of limitation to proceed on the merits of the matter against the petitioners and a separate order on those aspects alone should be rendered by him and duly communicated to the petitioners by registered speed post. If the said decision is against the petitioners, then the further proceedings in pursuance thereof on the merits of the matter, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month thereafter to enable the petitioners to seek appropriate remedies, if they have any grievance against such decision on the point of jurisdiction, limitation bar and such other threshold objections. Orders as aforestated should be passed by the 5th respondent-District Collector on the abovesaid aspects of jurisdiction, limitation bar and such other threshold objections, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of hearing of the petitioners as aforestated. In case, the 5th respondent finds that he has jurisdiction to proceed further, he may proceed further on the merits of the matter only after completion of the abovesaid one month period from the date of receipt of the order, as aforestated by R5 to the petitioners. 12. While deciding the issue of jurisdiction and time bar, the 5th respondent should specifically advert to and consider the objections of the petitioners that none of the provisions in the Kerala Stamp Act and the Rules framed thereunder, more particularly Sec.45B etc. or any other provision do not confer him any jurisdictional competence to deal with the factual scenario covered in this case. The 5th respondent shall also consider the specific contention of the petitioners that there was no question of the petitioners in executing a sale deed in respect of the lease hold rights of the lessee M/s Cadbury India Ltd., after the petitioners had stepped into the shoes of the lessor pursuant to Ext.P1 deed dated 11.10.1999 and that the only course open to them in law was to get the surrender of the lease from the lessee for which they have duly paid stamp duty as per Art.54, in respect of the transaction covered by Ext.P-2 and that there is no illegality or unlawfulness in the said transaction covered by Ext.P-2 and that there is no question of evasion of stamp duty etc. All such contentions of the petitioners should also be precisely and properly considered and adverted to by the District Collector before he arrives at a considered decision as to whether or not he has jurisdiction in the matter, as aforestated. It is also ordered in the interest of justice that before the 5th respondent-District Collector renders any decision on the issue of jurisdiction, time bar etc., he may also secure a legal opinion from the Advocate General/Additional Advocate General concerned and such legal opinion may comprehensively deal with all aspects of the matter for the proper legal guidance of R5. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. W.P(C) No.12371 of 2018 The sole petitioner in this W.P(C) is the 1st petitioner in the W.P(C)No.38354/2016. The grievance of the petitioner is against the non-acceptance of the land tax pertaining to the very same property covered by Exts.P-1 and P-2 in W.P(C)No.38354/2016 (which has also been produced as Exts.P-1 and P-2 in this W.P(C) as well). It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to Ext.P-1 sale deed dated 11.10.1999, the said property was mutated in favour of the land owner/s, who are paying land tax and it is only after the issuance of Exts.P-3 to P-5 proceedings in W.P(C)No.38354/2016, that the respondents refused to accept land tax from the petitioner in respect of the said property. It is in the light of the factual averments that the petitioner has filed W.P(C) No.12371 of 2018 with the following prayers: “A. Directing the respondents to receive the revenue in respect of 65 Acres 33 Cents of land in RS 266/1 of Kalpetta village from the petitioner and issue receipts for the same from 2008 onwards and in future also B. Any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the nature and circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri.B.G.Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Sr.Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The respondents do not have any objection as to the title or possession of the petitioner in respect of the abovesaid property covered by Exts.P-1 and P-2. Heard Sri.B.G.Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Sr.Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The respondents do not have any objection as to the title or possession of the petitioner in respect of the abovesaid property covered by Exts.P-1 and P-2. It appears that the only objection of the respondents is that a vigilance case has been registered against the petitioner and further that the land owners have been ordered to pay the alleged evaded stamp duty and registration fee, as per the impugned Exts.P-3 to P-5 proceedings in W.P(C)No.38354/2016. Merely because the respondents State authorities have a case that the land owner is liable to pay any alleged evaded tax or stamp duty to the Government and that revenue recovery in that regard is proposed as against the property of the land owner, by itself cannot be the ground to refuse to accept the land tax from the land owner. Such an impugned action on the part of the respondents, would be vitiated by arbitrary and irrelevant considerations. Now Exts.P-3 to P-5 in W.P(C)No.38354/2016 have already been set aside by this Court in that W.P(C), given herein above. Even if, the State authorities have a case that they propose to initiate revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner’s property for realising any alleged tax arrears or evaded tax, evaded stamp duty etc., the mere fact that they are accepting the land tax from the petitioner, will not in any manner prejudice claims and contentions of the State authorities in that regard. 4. It has been held by this Court in the decisions as in Rimmy v. State of Kerala, reported in 2012(4)KLT SN118 (C.No.104) and Vijayarajan M.D v. Tahsildar and Others, reported in (2013) KHC 2764, that land tax is to be collected from the Thandaper account even during the pendency of revenue recovery proceedings and mere attachment will not result in an encumbrance, which would deprive the State of its right to collect land revenue etc. 5. Therefore, it is declared that the impugned action on the part of the respondents in refusing to accept the land tax in this case from the petitioner is nothing but illegal, improper and arbitrary. 5. Therefore, it is declared that the impugned action on the part of the respondents in refusing to accept the land tax in this case from the petitioner is nothing but illegal, improper and arbitrary. Consequently, it is ordered that the competent authority among the respondents 3 and 4 (Tahsildar, Vythiri and Village Officer, Vythiri), shall forthwith accept the land tax from the registered land holders in respect of land covered by Exts.P-1 and P-2, as and when they offer to remit the said amount. The arrears in that regard should also be accepted by respondents 2 and 3 immediately and land tax receipts in that regard will also be issued to the registered land holders of those properties. It is reiterated and declared that the mere act of accepting land tax from the registered land holders in respect of the property covered by Exts.P-1 and P-2, by itself will not in any manner, prejudice the claims and contentions of the State authorities as aforestated. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.