Kerala High Court
Henry Sebastian 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.7787 OF 2021(W)
PETITIONER:
HENRY SEBASTIAN,
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. DEVASSIA,
CHERAPPARA HOUSE, UPPUTHARA VILLAGE,
PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE STATE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COLLECTOR,
GOVERNMENT LAND RESUMPTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE,
IDUKKI 685 603.
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 538.
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
UPPUTHARA VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 505.
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.7787 of 2021 -2-
T.R. RAVI, J.
------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.7787 of 2021
--------------------------------------------------
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 4
Ares and 25 square metres of property comprised in survey
No.338/3-12 of Peermade SRO. The above property was
received by the petitioner as per Settlement Deed No.2077/1996
dated 14.6.1996. 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". According to the petitioner, the property was
originally owned by one Mariamma and she had obtained the
same as per Pattayam No.1171. It was after changing several
hands that the property finally devolved on the petitioner. His
grievance is that the revenue authorities are refusing to issue the
certificates sought for by the petitioner for the reason that Land
conservancy proceedings have been initiated as per Ext.P4 and
that there is a prohibition on the basis of Government order
172/2019 dated 6.6.2019. He contends that Ext.P4 order was set
aside by this Court by Ext.P5 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.P6 and P7
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.P3 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 EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.
2077/1996 DATED 14/6/1996 OF PEERMADE
SRO.
EXHIBIT P1 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE
CERTIFICATE DATED 4/3/2021.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
4/2/2021.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4/2/2021
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.
GLR(LR) 210/15/PER-TCO DATED 12/8/2016
OF THE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COLLECTOR.
EXHIBIT P4 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE GO NO. 172/2019 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 6/6/2019.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
7/11/2018 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT
IN WPC NO. 40002/2016 AND CONNECTED
CASES.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
18/2/2019 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT
IN WPC NO. 4647/2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 13/7/2020
IN WPC NO. 13736/2020(N)
