JUDGMENT : 1. The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: “(i) To issue writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction to the 1st respondent to receive the land tax from 2004 and issue tax receipts to the petitioner with respect to the property. (ii) To give direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose Exhibit P6 appeal pending before the 2nd respondent at the earliest within a time frame.” 2. Heard Sri. Zubair Pulikool, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner is deeply aggrieved by the impugned decision of the 1st respondent Village Officer rendered as per Ext.P5 dated 29.6.2018, whereby he had refused to grant mutation and transfer of registry in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property she had purchased as per Ext.P1 registered deed No.1771/2004 dated 14.7.2004 of SRO, Mathamangalam on the ground that her uncle is now cultivating the said property etc. Her father’s brother is undertaking cultivation in the said subject property. The petitioner had purchased landed property having an extent of 20 cents (8.09 ares) in resurvey No.81/3 of Kadannappally Village, Kannur Taluk, Kannur Revenue District on the basis of Ext.P1 registered sale deed No.1771/2004 dated 14.7.2004 of SRO, Mathamangalam. The petitioner is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property which is under her title. The petitioner had paid fee for transfer of registry on 27.7.2004 as evident from Ext.P2 receipt before the 1st respondent Village Officer for carrying out mutation of the said property consequent to the registration of Ext.P1 deed. Since she was out of station with her husband in connection with job of her husband, she was not in a position to make arrangements for payment of basic land tax. The petitioner has now approached the 1st respondent Village Officer for several occasions for effectuating the process of mutation and for acceptance of basic land tax in respect of the subject property covered by Ext.P1. Ext.P3 is the petition dated 16.6.2018 filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent. Ext.P4 is the encumbrance certificate issued in respect of the subject property covered by Ext.P1, which unequivocally shows that the subject property covered by Ext.P1 is now under the title and possession of the petitioner consequent to Ext.P1 registered sale deed. Ext.P3 is the petition dated 16.6.2018 filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent. Ext.P4 is the encumbrance certificate issued in respect of the subject property covered by Ext.P1, which unequivocally shows that the subject property covered by Ext.P1 is now under the title and possession of the petitioner consequent to Ext.P1 registered sale deed. The 1st respondent Village Officer now takes the very curious stand in the impugned Ext.P5 order dated 29.6.2018 that he would refuse to grant mutation and to accept basic land tax in respect of the subject property covered by Ext.P1 on the ground that he has now been informed that the father of the petitioner’s brother is undertaking cultivation in the said subject property. Ext.P5 order dated 29.6.2018 makes interesting reading and it would be more approximate to quote the entire text of that order for the sake of clarity and the same reads as follows: xxx xxx xxx 4. According to the petitioner, the property was earlier duly mutated in the name of the predecessor-in-interest and he has also been paying basic land tax. If that be so, he is the registered land holder of the subject property. Since the petitioner has purchased the said property from the said predecessor as per Ext.P1 registered sale deed, she is the assignee of the registered land holder as understood in Section 3(3)(d). Section 3(3) reads as follows: ““3. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx (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. Going by the facts of this case, clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 3(3) will not be attracted. Since the petitioner is the assignee of the registered landholder, she would fit into the definition of landholder as understood in Section 3(3)(d). Going by the impact of Section 5(2), the 1st respondent Village Officer is under the bounden obligation to accept basic land tax from the landholder as understood in Section 3(3). This Court has held in umpteen number of decisions as in Hazeena v. Tahsildar [ 2010(3) KLT 278 ] that the land tax is to be accepted only from the landholder and that the land tax is to be collected by the competent officials for every year. This Court has also dealt with similar case in Sobha Surendran v. Tahsildar, Alathur [ 2019(1) KHC 96 ], wherein the entire gamut of the interrelationships and inter-play between the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act and the Kerala Land Tax Rules and the Transfer of Registry Rules more particularly those flowing from Section 3(3), Section 5(2) and Section 4(1) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules as well as the subservient nature of the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules has been dealt with in detail. Therein also a contention was taken that the property was stated to be under the cultivation of a stranger and that the Village Officer had thus refused to mutate and accept basic land tax from the petitioner therein. This Court has laid down the law in that regard and had given necessary directions in the matter. Very recently, yet another decision rendered by this Court on 30.1.2019 in W.P.(C)No.10412/2018, this Court was confronted with another peculiar case of almost identical nature, wherein the respondent Village Officer had taken the very same stand that he would refuse to mutate and accept basic land tax in respect of the subject property in which the landholders had secured final decree in the suit for partition as early as in the year 1994 on the ground that another member of the family is residing in the residential building in the said property. This Court had held in the said decision that the said stand of the respondent Village Officer is nothing short of capriciousness, whimsicality and “wednesbury unreasonableness” and had directed to immediately mutate the property and to accept basic land tax. Cases of this nature are mounting day by day before this Court for reasons which are not easily discernible to this Court and it appears that the reasons may be an enigma wrapped up in a great mystery. Despite many decisions rendered by this Court in many judgments calling upon the higher functionaries of the State as well as the senior Law officers of the State to examine the gravity of the problem to ensure proper and effective administration and enforcement of the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act and the Kerala Land Tax Rules, it appears as has been observed by this Court in many judgments that the said observations of this Court turns out to be “the futile cry of a prophet of the wilderness”. Yesterday (5.2.2019) this Court was constrained to render another judgment on 5.2.2019 in W.P.(C)No.3414/2019 that in such cases if necessary remedial measures are not taken by the competent revenue officials concerned, then this Court may be constrained to direct that in cases where the land tax is illegally refused then the competent Tahsildar and the competent Village Officer will have to pay 18% interest on the land tax from the date of offer upto the date of actual payment and such interest should be collected from their respective salaries to be credited to the treasury account. The matters relating to acceptance of basic land tax, mutation and transfer of registry are only limited arrangement for fiscal purposes as enshrined in Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules and it is to ensure the timely collection of land revenue to the public exchequer. The competent revenue officials concerned are obliged by Section 5(2) and Section 3(3) to collect land tax from the landholder concerned. This Court even venture to say that it is the duty and obligation of the competent revenue officials concerned to ascertain as to who are the assignees of the registered landholder when the property is alienated or as to who are the legal representatives, where the registered landholder had died so as to ensure that the land tax is collected from the landholder as understood in Section 3(3). The competent revenue officials like the 1st respondent cannot take the stand that they will take decision on the question of acceptance of basic land tax at their sweet will and time and if that is permitted, it will amount to arbitrariness and would amount to nothing but undermining the foundation of rule of law. It goes without saying that where any rival claimant has got a case that he has a better title, disputes the title or possession of a landholder, certainly liberty is available to him in law to raise such disputations in the manner known to law through civil proceedings and even if the mutation and transfer of registry is granted, it will be subject to revision consequent to such judicial verdicts that may be pronounced by the civil court subsequently in such disputation. This position has been clearly enshrined in Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules. Therefore, the person mentioned in the impugned Ext.P5 order about whom the respondent Village Officer so much of concern, has any claim or disputation regarding the title or possession of the petitioner, certainly it is open to him to raise such disputation through the process of civil proceedings. Accordingly, it is ordered and declared that the stand of the 1st respondent Village Officer as per the impugned Ext.P5 rejection order dated 29.6.2018 is vitiated by arbitrariness, capriciousness and “wednesbury unreasonableness”. In that view of the matter, the impugned Ext.P5 order will stand set aside. The matter will stand remitted to the 1st respondent Village Officer, who will consider the request made by the petitioner for grant of mutation, transfer of registry and acceptance of basic land tax and, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, will grant such request without any delay preferably within a period of one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment, if it is otherwise in order. The 1st respondent Village Officer would bear in mind the heavy responsibilities cast on his shoulders by the Legislature by the enactment of Sections 3(3), 5(2) and Section 4(1) of the Kerala Land Tax Act and Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules and then he should act accordingly. It is hoped and expected that the 1st respondent Village Officer will not again make the petitioner run from pillar to post and from post to pole. It is hoped and expected that the 1st respondent Village Officer will not again make the petitioner run from pillar to post and from post to pole. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.