JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action on the part of the 1st respondent Village Officer refusing to mutate subject property and to accept basic land tax on the mere ground of pendency of revenue recovery proceedings initiated as against the property covered by Ext.P-1 sale deed. The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: “(a) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P-3 order and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or such other writ or order or direction. (b) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or order directing the respondents to effect transfer of registry on the basis of Exhibit P-1 sale-deed. (c) To issue such other writ, order or direction during the course of the proceedings found to be fit and proper to grant by this Honourable Court.” 2. Heard Sri. A. Jani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Priya Shanavas, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. It is stated the petitioner is the absolute title holder of an extent of 1 Are 62 sq. mtr. of property comprised in old Sy. No. 4711 in Re-survey No. 116/5/2 in block No. 23 of Thrikkovilavattom Village, Kollam Taluk, Kollam Revenue District, which she obtained on the basis of Ext.P-1 registered sale deed dated 17.3.2005 of SRO, Kannanallur. The petitioner was residing in a gulf country (UAE) with her husband for a very long time. 4. She has submitted application 18.7.2017 for transfer of registry and for grant of mutation in respect of the said property covered by Ext.P-1 registered sale deed and as no action was forthcoming on the same, she has also submitted Ext.P-2 application dated 26.9.2018 before the 1st respondent. In response to Ext.P-2 application, the 1st petitioner has now issued Ext.P-3 letter No. 616/18 informing that since revenue recovery proceedings have been pending against the predecessor in interest of the petitioner's property, he is not in a position to accede to the request for grant of registry and mutation and to accept basic land tax, etc. It is this proceedings at Ext.P-3 is under challenge. 5. It is this proceedings at Ext.P-3 is under challenge. 5. This case is also one among the numerous cases of similar nature, which have now been routinely handled by this Court, about which this Court has now issued a series of judgments by which even the higher authorities of the State have been called upon to give necessary instructions to the competent revenue officials like, Village Officer, Tahsildar, etc. who are responsible for the proper enforcement of the Kerala Land Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder to ensure that applications of this nature are considered in the simple legal perspective as borne out from those statutes and not to unnecessarily get into complex and irrelevant issues. From a reading of Ext.P-3 proceedings it can be seen that the only ground of rejection of the request of the petitioner for grant of registry and mutation, etc. is on account of the alleged pendency of the revenue recovery proceedings said to have been initiated against the predecessor in interest of the subject property. 6. It has been held in a catena of decisions by various High Courts including this Court as in Tulasibhai vs. State of Kerala, 2010 (4) KLT 215 and Nevin Raju vs. S. Basheer and Others, 2015 (3) KLJ 197 , that mere pendency of revenue recovery proceedings or attachment proceedings, etc. will not be sufficient justification on the part of the Village Officer, Tahsildar, etc. for refusing to accept basic land tax from land holders concerned. It has also been held that there are no provisions in the Transfer of Registry Rules interdicting acceptance of basic land tax on account of such contingency and that the competent revenue officials are obliged to accept land tax from the land holders concerned, as otherwise it would amount to loss of revenue to the public exchequer and would also amount to dereliction and abdication of the statutory duties of the competent revenue officials concerned. It has also been held by various High Courts and the Apex Court in decisions as in Surney vs. Inder Kaur, AIR 1966 SC 2823 that mutation of the property in the revenue records does not create any or extinguish title, nor has it any presumptive value on title and it only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered, to pay the land revenue in question. Moreover, the petitioner has purchased the property on the basis of Ext.P-1 registered sale deed. It is not in serious dispute that the subject property in question was duly registered in the name of the petitioner's predecessor, who conveyed the property in question to the petitioner as per Ext.P-1 and therefore he/she is the registered land holder of the property in question. Sec. 3(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, which defines, “Land-holder” as follows: “ Sec. 3(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 nay 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 nay 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.” 7. Going by the averments in this case, the contingencies envisaged in clause (a), (b) and (c) of the Sec. 3(3) of the above Act may not arise, but since the petitioner has purchased the property from the predecessor of the registered holder as per Ext.P-1, certainly she is the assignee of the registered land holder as understood in clause (d) of Sec. 3(3) and so she would fulfill the definition of “land-holder” as understood in Sec. 3(3) more particularly clause (d) thereof. Sec. 5(2) of the Kerala Land Tax mandates that the competent revenue officials like the Tahsildar, Village Officer, etc. are obliged to collect land tax from land holder concerned as understood in Sec. 3(3). Therefore, competent revenue officials like respondents 1 and 2 are obliged to accept basic land tax from the land holder concerned, as otherwise it would be violation of the mandate in Sec. 5(2) and Sec. 3(3) of the Land Tax Act. are obliged to collect land tax from land holder concerned as understood in Sec. 3(3). Therefore, competent revenue officials like respondents 1 and 2 are obliged to accept basic land tax from the land holder concerned, as otherwise it would be violation of the mandate in Sec. 5(2) and Sec. 3(3) of the Land Tax Act. Accordingly, it is ordered that the 1st respondent Village Officer will immediately take up the request made by the petitioner in the abovesaid application for grant of mutation and acceptance of basic land tax as made out in Ext.P-2 etc. and after affording reasonable opportunity of being of heard to the petitioner will grant the said request for mutation and will also issue basic land tax receipt in that regard forthwith. However, it is made clear that that any such action will not in any manner prejudice the finalisaiton of the revenue recovery proceedings as against the subject property, if it is otherwise is justified and warranted on facts and law and provided due procedure thereof is rigorously complied with. 8. Before parting with this case, it is pertinent to point out that this Court has observed in quite a few number of cases about the seriousness of the situation and had called upon the higher functionaries of the State administration to examine the seriousness and magnitude of the problem reflected in cases like this where the competent revenue officials are unnecessarily refusing to accept basic land tax on untenable and unsustainable grounds as in the instant case. This Court had also directed that certified copies of those judgments should also given to higher officials like the Chief Secretary to Government and the Addl. Secretary to Government in Revenue Department, etc. and so far it is not known whether any attempts have been made by them to alert the competent revenue officials in charge of revenue administration and who are in charge enforcement of the Kerala Land Tax Act and the rules framed thereunder for taking alert and vigilant measures to alleviate the grievances of the citizenry and also to ensure timely acceptance of basic land tax in respect of the Kerala Land Tax and the rules framed thereunder. As has been observed by this Court in some cases, it appears to the understanding of this Court that Kerala Land Tax Act is the only branch in taxation law where the tax payers are running after the tax collectors to pay the tax dues and for reasons which are not easily fathomable, the tax collectors very often, as in the instant case, would adamantly refuse to accept basic land tax on untenable and unsustainable, which leads to serious loss of revenue to the public exchequer. Therefore, this state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue. Hence, this Court would alert the competent State authorities concerned that if dereliction and abdication of the statutory obligations and duties of the competent revenue officials like Tahsildar, Village Officer, etc. are continued to be exhibited as could be gathered by the nature of the litigations that may be posed before this Court, then this Court may be constrained to order that the competent revenue officials like Village Officer, Tahsildar, etc. would be liable to pay interest on the amount of land tax, which was refused to be accepted from the land holders concerned from the date of offer upto the date of actual payment @ 18% p.a. so as to collect directly from the pay of the officials concerned to be credited to the treasury account concerned so that the public exchequer and public interest need not suffer due to the arbitrariness and illegalities committed in the enforcement of due collection land revenue under the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act 1961 and the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972. 9. The Secretary of the office of the Advocate General will forward certified copies of this judgment to the Chief Secretary to Government of Kerala and the Principal Secretary to Government of Kerala in the Revenue Department, etc. for information. 10. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.