Kerala High Court
Robin Joseph vs The State Of Kerala on 20 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 30TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.25572 OF 2020(V)
PETITIONER:
ROBIN JOSEPH
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. GEORGE JOSEPH, MEENCHIRAYIL,
PATHEKKAKARAYIL, PEERMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT -
685505.
BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
2 THE STATE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COLLECTOR
GOVERNMENT LAND RESUMPTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI - 685603.
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, 685538.
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
UPPUTHARA VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685505.
BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI SUNIL KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.25572 of 2020 -2-
T.R. RAVI, J.
------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.25572 of 2020
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of April, 2021
JUDGMENT
Admit. The Government pleader takes notice on behalf of the
respondents.
2. Heard Sri.Biju C. Abraham, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioner herein is in possession and enjoyment of
2.2 Ares of property comprised in old survey No.338, Sub
Division No.1/58 & 1/59 of Upputhara Village, Peermade Taluk.
The above property was received by the petitioner as per
Settlement Deed No.1846/1/2020 from his mother. When he
approached the respondents for remitting tax, Ext.P2 receipt was
issued with an endorsement that "provisionally accepted as per
GO 172/2019 dated 6/6/2019". The petitioner would refer to
Ext.P3 Encumbrance certificate and it is contended that the
property was originally owned by one Vellayan Kakkani and he
had purchased the same by sale deed No.10 of 1959. It was after
changing several hands that the property had finally devolved on
the petitioner. His grievance is that the revenue authorities are
refusing to issue the revenue certificates sought for by the
petitioner placing reliance on Exts.P5 and P6 proceedings, which
have already been set aside by this Court as per Ext.P7 judgment
dated 7.11.2018, wherein it was held by this Court that the
proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act can be invoked only
for the purpose of resumption or removal of encroachment from
Government lands and not in respect of property owned by
individuals and obtained by deeds which have been legally
executed and registered in accordance with law. This Court had
further held that in those cases where the individuals have raised
a valid claim to title, the State will have to institute appropriate
civil proceedings to establish its title. The petitioner also relies on
Exts.P8 and P9 judgments of this Court and another judgment of
this Court in W.P.(C) No.990 of 2020 and connected cases,
wherein this Court had held that no restrictions can be imposed
on the right of the petitioner to remit basic tax on the strength of
title deeds subject of course to the adjudication of title if any in a
properly instituted suit by the Government. I am in complete
agreement with the law laid down in the judgments referred
above.
4. In the light of the laid down as above, the counsel for the
petitioner submits that Ext.P4 is not sustainable in law and the 5th
respondent cannot refuse to effect mutation of the property
covered by Ext.P1 and issue Location Sketch, ROR, Possession
Certificate and other revenue certificates with respect to the
property covered by Ext.P1 without any adverse endorsements
and enable him to pay basic tax.
5. From Ext.P1, it is apparent that the petitioner herein has
acquired title in respect of the property covered under Ext.P1. In
view of the judgments referred above, proceedings under the
Land Conservancy Act cannot be invoked in cases where the
party concerned has valid title over the property. In such cases,
the State will have to institute appropriate civil proceedings to
establish its title. Until the civil court holds against the petitioner
on the basis of evidence let in, no embargo can be placed on his
right to enjoy his property or in dealing with the same in the
manner he chooses.
6. Hence, the 5th respondent is directed to permit the
petitioner to effect mutation over the property and also to issue
Location sketch, ROR, Possession Certificate and other revenue
certificates without making any adverse endorsements,
immediately. However, it is made clear that the above order will
be subject to the adjudication of the title in a Civil Suit, if any,
instituted by the State.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI
JUDGE
dsn
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED
NO.1846/1/2020 DATED 9.10.2020 OF
PEERMADE SRO
EXHIBIT P1A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN FORM
NO.1 DATED NIL FORWARDED BY THE SRO
PEERMADE BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO
EFFECT MUTATION
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
3.7.2020
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE WITH REGARD TO THE
PETITIONERS PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P1
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.11 .
2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.GLR(LR)
210/15/PER-TCO DATED 12.8.2016 OF THE
SPECIAL OFFICER AND COLLECTOR
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GO NO.172/2019 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 6.6.2019
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
7.11.2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN WPC NO.40002/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
18.2.2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN WPC NO.4647/2019
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
13.7.2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN WPC NO.13736/2010(N)
