JUDGMENT : S. MANU, J. Petitioners are the legal heirs of late Dr.S.Ramakrishnan Potty. Crux of the contentions of the petitioners are as narrated hereunder. Predecessor of the petitioner was having 28 acres of land in Sy.Nos.366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371 and 372 of Kadinamkulam Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. The Taluk Land Board opened a ceiling case against him and fixed 13 acres as excess land. In O.P.No.2488/1989 this Court permitted the predecessor of the petitioners to surrender 13 acres of the south-western portion of the 28 acres. In O.P.No.10898/1993, by judgment dated 10.11.1993, this Court directed 1 st respondent to identify and demarcate 13 acres on the south- western portion. It was further directed that if 4.15 acres of vacant land fell outside the 13 acres the same shall be re- conveyed to the predecessor of the petitioner. On 22.5.1992, a notice was issued for re-opening the ceiling case and upon a challenge in O.P.No.8950/1992, this Court quashed the notice. According to the petitioners, for a long time, because of these proceedings their predecessor was not in a position to do anything in the land. While so, several persons trespassed into the properties, constructed buildings, fabricated and forged documents and in collusion with the revenue officers started paying taxes for the properties under their occupation. Release of balance extent of 15 acres to the predecessor of the petitioners never materialised. By proceedings dated 03.07.2009, the surrendered extent of 13 acres was taken possession of. The RDO on 08.12.2010 issued directions to the Additional Tahsildar with respect to mutation and payment of tax for the properties not falling within the 13 acres and for including the 13 acres as 'puramboke'. Predecessor of the petitioner submitted objection as the land was demarcated without notice and the 13 acres were not identified on the south-western portion. Objection was raised against payment of taxes by persons having no rights. The Additional Tahsildar on 25.01.2011 conveyed to the Village Officer that 13 acres were taken possession in compliance with the judgment in O.P.No.8950/1992. It was also pointed out that certain properties under the Thandaper No.2811, in the name of the predecessor of the petitioners, were included in pattas granted to various persons. Further mutations were directed to be made only with the permission of the Tahsildar. 2. It was also pointed out that certain properties under the Thandaper No.2811, in the name of the predecessor of the petitioners, were included in pattas granted to various persons. Further mutations were directed to be made only with the permission of the Tahsildar. 2. The District Collector, on the basis of complaints, directed the Additional Tahsildar to examine all applications and complaints regarding mutation cautiously, by letter dated 05.07.2012. The Additional Tahsildar intimated several persons claiming title and possession that their documents were not proper. Respondents 8 to 20 approached Lok Ayuktha in complaint No.325/2013 alleging that revenue officers were not effecting mutation and accepting tax. Finally the complaint was closed on 15.11.2013. The District Collector called for a report from the Tahsildar in the meantime. On 24.12.2013, the Tahsildar submitted a report stating that complainants before the Lok Ayuktha had no title. Permission was sought for taking further action. On 16.07.2014, a meeting was convened by the Revenue Minister and some decisions were taken. It was decided to depute a Special Survey Team for conducting a survey and prepare sketch. It was also decided to put on hold effecting of mutation and the acceptance of land tax until the proceedings are completed. 3. The District Collector called for a report from the Village Officer as several persons submitted applications for effecting mutation. Village Officer submitted a detailed report on 26.9.2014. In the report produced as Ext.P11 it is stated inter alia that the 13 acres of land surrendered as excess land has not been demarcated. Further, the Village Officer stated that persons who were claiming rights should have approached civil court or obtained release deeds from the person having jenmam right. According to the petitioners, only an extent of 6.6 acres was sold by their predecessor to Muslim Educational Society. 95 cents was sold to another party. The entire balance extent is under the ownership of the petitioners. 4. The Special Survey Team constituted as per the decision taken in the meeting convened by the Minister submitted a report on 20.1.2015. The District Survey Superintendent in turn submitted a report to the District Collector. Thereafter, on 13.8.2015, the District Collector passed the impugned order cancelling any restrictions in the matter of accepting land tax with respect to properties not falling within 13 acres of excess land. Petitioners thereafter approached this Court. The District Survey Superintendent in turn submitted a report to the District Collector. Thereafter, on 13.8.2015, the District Collector passed the impugned order cancelling any restrictions in the matter of accepting land tax with respect to properties not falling within 13 acres of excess land. Petitioners thereafter approached this Court. Petitioners contend that the order passed by the District Collector is illegal and perverse. According to them, no notice was issued to them before passing the said order. The District Collector and RDO had earlier directed the Tahsildar and the Village Officer to verify title deeds of the applicants for payment of tax and to effect mutation only after considering the complaints. As per Ext.P6, the Additional Tahsildar had rejected the applications of respondents 8 to 20. This was for the reason that no deeds were executed in favour of them by the late Ramakrishnan Potty or his legal heirs. As evident from Ext.P9, the Tahsildar had reported to the Collector that the 13 persons who had approached Lok Ayuktha had no title. In Ext.P12 report, the Special Survey Team had mentioned that the party respondents had no title, but when the Re-Survey BTR was prepared names of those persons who were not having any title were also recorded and thandaper was allotted to them. The said procedure was totally illegal. Survey team has given the list of those who were allotted thandaper wrongly. While issuing Ext.P15, the District Collector ignored all these relevant aspects. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Collector passed such an order having drastic consequences in a matter pending for several years and involved in several litigations at the instance of the petitioners without issuing any notice to them. Regarding the contention that intimation regarding hearing was published in newspapers, the learned counsel submitted that the said method was adopted without issuing personal notice to the petitioners only to deceive the petitioners. They did not notice the news items regarding hearing published in the newspapers. As they were continuously raising complaints and proceedings were initiated on the basis of their representations, as a matter of fairness, the Collector ought to have issued notices to them and heard them before taking a decision in the matter. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners were denied natural justice and the procedure adopted by the District Collector was highly arbitrary. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners were denied natural justice and the procedure adopted by the District Collector was highly arbitrary. He also submitted that the Collector had no authority to pass an order in the nature of Ext.P15. The learned counsel submitted that the right course ought to have been followed by the District Collector was to take action on the report of the Special Survey Team. Instead of doing the same, the Collector permitted the encroachers to remit property tax. The learned counsel submitted that petitioners who were fighting for establishing the rights and to recover the property under illegal occupation were not fairly dealt with by the Collector. 5. The learned counsel relied on the following judgments of this Court:- 1. Abdul Majeed v. Shareefa [ 2014 (2) KLT 265 ], 2. Renjith v. District Collector [ 2019 (1) KLT 164 ], 3. Rahulan v. Tahsildar (LR) [ 2021 (4) KLT 689 ], 4. Sreedevi Amma v. District Collector [ 2009 (2) KLT 141 ], 5. Sunil v. Additional Thahasildar, Kollam and Others [ 2019 (2) KHC 889 ], 6. Ajayakumar v. District Collector [ 2019 (4) KLT 105 ]. 6. The learned counsel, relying on the above judgments, submitted that the explanation offered by the Government in their counter affidavit that the order passed by the District Collector permitting to receive tax from the party respondents will not have any serious consequences on the respective rights of the parties, as it is only for fiscal purposes, is untenable. He made a specific reference to the judgment of a Division Bench in Abdul Majeed (supra), wherein the Division Bench observed that it cannot be said that any change made in the revenue records to enable remitting of tax is of no serious consequence. The learned counsel further submitted that the revenue officials are entitled to collect tax only from the landholder, and the party respondents cannot be considered as landholders. He also submitted that even if the respondents paid basic tax for any previous periods, that would not confer them the right to continue such payment. He concluded by submitting that Ext.P15 order of the District Collector is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by this Court in various judgments cited by him. 7. He also submitted that even if the respondents paid basic tax for any previous periods, that would not confer them the right to continue such payment. He concluded by submitting that Ext.P15 order of the District Collector is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by this Court in various judgments cited by him. 7. The learned Government Pleader opened his submissions by stating that the petitioners are actually making an attempt to get civil rights decided in a writ petition. He contended that the petitioners, who are basically raising a grievance that the properties of their predecessor-in-interest were encroached upon by the party respondents and others, have not approached the civil court for proper relief so far. He submitted that the writ petition is actually misconceived. The learned Government Pleader made reference to the gift deed by virtue of which the late Ramakrishnan Potty obtained these properties. He pointed out that at the time of execution of the said deed also, there was encroachment of the property by third parties as seen from the recitals. He hence contended that long ago, in 1960 it was noticed by the predecessors-in-interest of late Ramakrishnan Potty that it was necessary to approach civil court for evicting the encroachers. However, neither the predecessor in interest nor Ramakrishnan Potty or any one claiming under him moved the civil court. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that mutations are effected following the provisions of the TRANSFER OF REGISTRY RULES , 1966 . Reading out Rule 2, the learned Government Pleader contended that it is not for the Revenue Officers to verify the veracity or genuineness of the transaction when a person is claiming rights under a deed and approaches them for effecting mutation. He also pointed out Rule 16 and submitted that, in case there is a dispute regarding title, the remedy provided under the Rules is a civil suit. The learned Government Pleader also pointed out Rule 28 and submitted that claims with respect to adverse possession can be taken note of by the Revenue Authorities in the matter of effecting mutation. He made reference to the definition of the expression ‘land holder’ in the Land Tax Act, 1961 , and submitted that the claims of the petitioners are not legally sustainable, as the disputed lands are admittedly not held by them. He made reference to the definition of the expression ‘land holder’ in the Land Tax Act, 1961 , and submitted that the claims of the petitioners are not legally sustainable, as the disputed lands are admittedly not held by them. The learned Government Pleader also made reference to the definition of the expression 'registered holder' in the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 . He argued that the properties which were gifted to the late Ramakrishnan Potty were under encroachment or occupation by various persons for the past several decades, and even the excess land surrendered could not be physically possessed by the Government as several persons were residing in the property. He further submitted that factual disputes, which can be decided only on the basis of evidence by a competent civil court, are involved in the case at hand and hence the reliefs sought in the writ petition may not be granted. The learned Government Pleader justified Ext. P15 issued by the District Collector. He pointed out that notice regarding the hearing was given by issuing press notes, and leading dailies had published the news about the hearing. Therefore, it cannot be contended by the petitioners that the Collector took the decision and issued Ext.P15 behind their back. The Collector, taking note of the facts and circumstances, permitted the party respondents and others to remit the basic tax with the intention of putting an end to the stalemate regarding the payment of tax. He argued that the mere payment of basic tax did not confer any right on anyone, and hence the order issued by the Collector was not of much consequence as far as the actual dispute is concerned, which can be resolved only by the civil court. The learned Government Pleader therefore, submitted that this writ petition may be dismissed. The learned Government Pleader relied on the following judgments of this Court in support of his contentions: 1. Rajkumar S. and Others v. Tahsildar, Devikulam and Others [ 2020 (3) KHC 270 ], 2. Marunnoli Vijayalakhsmi and Others v. Tahsildar, Koyilandi Taluk and Others [ 2019 (1) KHC 142 ], 3. Laila v. Village Officer, Thirkkovilvattom Village Office and Others [ 2019 (4) KHC 799 ], 4. Renjith.K.C v. District Collector, Ernakulam District and Others [2019 KHC 6], 5. Sudan K.K and others v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2013 (4) KHC 201 ], 6. Laila v. Village Officer, Thirkkovilvattom Village Office and Others [ 2019 (4) KHC 799 ], 4. Renjith.K.C v. District Collector, Ernakulam District and Others [2019 KHC 6], 5. Sudan K.K and others v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2013 (4) KHC 201 ], 6. Rimmy v. State of Kerala and Others [2012 KHC 2981], 7. Vijayarajan M.D v. Tahsildar and Others [2013 KHC 2764]. 8. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 8 to 20 submitted that the party respondents have been enjoying the properties on the basis of documents validly executed by a competent person. She contended that 50 Acres of property comprised in Sy.Nos.366 to 372 of Kadinamkulam Village belonged to one Haridasan Potti, who died issueless. He had sold 6 Acres of property to various persons. The learned counsel pointed out the detailed narration in the counter affidavit filed by the 11 th respondent as to how the title of the properties derived on the respondents 8 to 20. On the basis of the detailed description of derivation of title, she submitted that the party respondents did not receive any property from late Ramakrishnan Potty. The crux of the contention is that the properties held by respondents 8 to 20 were never part of the 28 acres of land held by Ramakrishnan Potty when the Land Board initiated ceiling proceedings. She also contended that, even if it is assumed without admitting that there is any substance in the petitioners' contentions, the appropriate remedy is to approach the civil court and seek to have the allegedly forged and fabricated documents set aside. The learned counsel submitted, with reference to the averments in the affidavit filed on 12.01.2024, that the party respondents received credible information, after the counter affidavit was filed that the writ petitioners, their predecessors-in-interest, and their power of attorney holder had disposed of almost all the properties in favour of third parties. She referred to the information obtained under the provisions of the Right to Information Act regarding the transactions made by the late Ramakrishnan Potty and his power of attorney holders, as narrated in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the affidavit. She submitted that some of the reports by the revenue officers, which were relied upon by the petitioners, were prepared without considering the facts revealed under the Right to Information Act regarding mutations related to Thandaper No.2811. She submitted that some of the reports by the revenue officers, which were relied upon by the petitioners, were prepared without considering the facts revealed under the Right to Information Act regarding mutations related to Thandaper No.2811. The learned counsel contended that the party respondents were unable to pay the basic tax or enjoy their properties due to the frivolous claims raised by the petitioners. She submitted that the District Collector intervened and issued Ext.P15, permitting them to remit the basic tax. She contended that the petitioners are proceeding on entirely wrong premises, and that the writ petition is not maintainable, as the reliefs sought cannot be granted by determining the rights of the parties in this writ petition. 9. The overall picture obtained from hearing the counsel for the respective parties and perusing the pleadings and documents is that of a very complex factual situation. The contention of the petitioners is that the properties left with the predecessors-in-interest after surrendering 13 acres of excess land, as determined by the Land Board, could not be enjoyed by them. They project a grievance that at no point of time, any valid deeds were executed either by late Ramakrishnan Potty or his legal heirs with respect to any part of the properties. Hence, they contend that whoever is now occupying parts of the property are illegal occupants. The main contention raised during the course of arguments was that different Thandaper numbers were assigned to the properties held by various persons after the resurvey. According to the petitioners, this was highly improper and was noted by the Village Officer and the Tahsildar in their reports. It is also pointed out by the petitioners that the findings of the Special Survey Team was also to the effect that the persons now occupying the land have no proper title of the properties. The major grievance projected in the writ petition is regarding the decision taken by the Collector. The petitioners assailed the decision taken by the Collector reflected in Ext.P15 on various grounds. One of the contentions is that the said decision having drastic consequences as far as the claims of the petitioners are concerned, was passed without proper notice to them. The Government has no case that any notice was issued to the petitioners. The procedure adopted was that of issuing a public notice by publishing the news regarding the hearing in newspapers. The Government has no case that any notice was issued to the petitioners. The procedure adopted was that of issuing a public notice by publishing the news regarding the hearing in newspapers. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that news items escaped notice of the petitioners and therefore, they could not appear before the Collector and raise objections against permitting the party respondents and others to remit basic tax. They contend that it was very well within the knowledge of all revenue authorities concerned that they were aggrieved by illegal occupation of the property by the party respondents and others and had been pursuing the matter for long. They hence, contend that as a matter of propriety and fairness, the Collector ought to have issued notice to them and heard them also before issuing Ext.P15. The 2 nd ground of challenge broadly is with respect to rights claimed by the petitioners over the properties held by the late Ramakrishnan Potty. There is serious dispute with regard to this aspect. There is factual dispute even as to whether the properties held by respondents 8 to 20 were actually part of the properties obtained by virtue of a gift deed by the late Ramakrishnan Potty. True that their names were also included by the Government in the list of persons who were occupying the properties which were originally under the Thandaper number given to late Ramakrishnan Potty. 10. In the nature of the dispute between the petitioners and the party respondents, in my considered view, rendering any opinions regarding the merits of the rival claims in a writ petition will be improper. The disputes have various factual ramifications and resolving the same is not within the contours of writ jurisdiction. Therefore, though extensive submissions were made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also learned counsel appearing for the party respondents regarding derivation of title, possession and rights claimed by both sides with reference to various documents, I refrain from entering into the merits of such contentions and leave it open to the parties to agitate the same before appropriate forums. 11. However, regarding Ext.P15 proceedings of the District Collector, I find that the petitioners have a grievance that no notice was issued to them and no opportunity was provided for them before passing the same. The Collector had caused newspaper publication regarding hearing. 11. However, regarding Ext.P15 proceedings of the District Collector, I find that the petitioners have a grievance that no notice was issued to them and no opportunity was provided for them before passing the same. The Collector had caused newspaper publication regarding hearing. In normal circumstances, the same can be considered as sufficient notice. However, in the case at hand, the dispute arose only because petitioners who are the legal heirs of Ramakrishnan Potty raised claims regarding their rights over the extent of 15 Acres of land which remained with late Ramakrishnnan Potty as per the decision of the Land Board, considered by this Court also in C.R.P.No.1220/1976 as also in O.P.Nos.2488/1989, 8950/1990, and 10898/1993. Fact that the petitioners herein were the aggrieved persons pursuing the matter was not unknown to the revenue authorities. That being so, as a matter of propriety, in order to ensure procedural fairness and to comply with the principles of natural justice, the Collector ought to have issued notices to the petitioners and heard them before taking the decision to permit the party respondents and others to remit basic tax. In the said view of the matter, I find it appropriate to set aside Ext.P15 and to direct the District Collector to consider the matter afresh with notice to the petitioners and all other interested parties. Hence, this writ petition is partly allowed and the following directions are issued:- a) Ext.P15 is set aside. b) The District Collector shall fix a date for hearing to consider the matter afresh. c) Notice regarding the date of hearing shall be issued to the petitioners and the party respondents in this writ petition. d) It will be appropriate that the Collector issues press note regarding the hearing as done before issuing Ext.P15, so that any others interested may also participate in the hearing. e) The interim order preventing acceptance of basic tax from the party respondents passed on 06.04.2016 by this Court shall remain in force till a fresh decision is taken by the Collector as directed above. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.