IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 26157 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
S.PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR
GOVINDAVILASAM, NOORUAPARA HOUSE, PARAVOOTHARA,
NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADVS.
M.P.SREEKRISHNAN
SRI.A.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM 685 011.
3 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR),
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COLLECTORATE,ERNAKULAM 685 011.
4 THE TAHSILDAR LR,
PARAVUR, TALUK OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, NORTH PARAVUR,
KERALA 683 513.
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KARUMBALOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.K AMMINIKUTTY -SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 26157 OF 2020 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that the properties involved in this case are owned by him and his wife and that neither of them are holding any land in excess of the ceiling limit, as prescribed under the Kerala Land Reforms Act ('KLR Act' for short). He says that this is evident and manifest from Ext.P2 report of the Village Officer, which has detailed that the properties owned by them in seriatim and therefore, that he was entitled to seek its transfer of Registry in their respective names and to be consequentially allowed to pay land tax thereon. He alleges that these requests made by him and his wife have been rejected without assigning any reason; and therefore, prays that the 4th respondent - Tahsildar and the 5th respondent - Village Officer be directed to accede to the same without any further delay.
2. The afore submissions of Shri.M.P.Sreekrishnan - learned counsel for the petitioner, were answered by the learned Senior Government Pleader - Smt.K.Amminikutty, relying upon an order issued by the District Collector, Ernakulam dated 24.01.2021, which is under Section 120A of the KLR Act . She submitted that this order WP(C) NO. 26157 OF 2020 3 was issued because the proceedings before the Land Tribunal against the petitioner and his wife are still pending and there is a suspicion that they are attempting to sell their properties to defeat the provisions of the KLR Act. She, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
3. In reply Shri.M.P.Sreekrishnan - learned counsel for the petitioner, refuted the afore submissions saying that neither his client nor his wife have never been communicated with any order by the District Collector under Section 120A of the KLR Act. He then contended that, in any event of the matter, even if such an order has been issued, it would not stand in the way of his client and his wife being allowed to remit land tax on the properties or to have its registry transferred in their names, because it is only a fiscal measure and particularly because they will abide by any orders to be issued by the Land Tribunal. He concluded his submissions asserting that his client and his wife do not intent to transfer any of the properties involved in this case, without obtaining necessary orders from the competent Tribunal.
WP(C) NO. 26157 OF 2020 4
4. When I hear Shri.M.P.Sreekrishnan as afore, I must say that I find substantial force in his submissions because, the remittance of land tax or the transfer of Registry, as rightly stated by him, is only a fiscal measure. This is not a attribute of ownership per se and therefore, if the Land Tribunal is to find against the petitioner or his wife in any manner, they will be obligated to abide by the same, subject to their available remedies, notwithstanding remittance of tax or transfer of Registry.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition, recording the submissions of Shri.M.P.Sreekrishnan that his client and his wife will not sell any of the properties which are now within the ambit of the suo motu proceedings before the Land Tribunal, without obtaining necessary orders from the said Authority; with a consequential direction to the 4th respondent - Tahsildar and the 5th respondent - Village Officer to accede to his and his wife's request of transfer of Registry of properties in their favour and for remittance of land tax on it, which shall be done as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date on which an application for the above are made in terms of the afore liberty. WP(C) NO. 26157 OF 2020 5
After I dictated this part of the judgment, Shri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that his client has also prayed that S.M.No.1/2016 pending before the Land Tribunal against his client be directed to be disposed of within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
Since the petitioner is stated to be more than a century in age, I direct the Land Tribunal to dispose of the suo motu proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, following due procedure.
I also clarify that if the land tax from the petitioner and his wife have already been accepted in terms of the earlier interim orders of this court, same shall now be treated to be final and not provisional.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/26.5 WP(C) NO. 26157 OF 2020 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26157/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.12.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUMALLOOR SUBMITTED TO THE TAHSILDAR, DATED 04.02.2020.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.07.2020 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION, DATED 23.09.2020.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FIELD BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TALUK LAND BOARD, DATED 06.06.2019 WITHOUT ANNEXURES.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
12.02.2016 IN WPC 33256 OF 2014.