Aboobacker vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 15982 Ker

WP(C) NO. 23428 OF 2020             1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
     MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 23428 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:

             ABOOBACKER,
             AGED 68 YEARS,
             S/O HUSSANKUTTY, NECHIKKADAN HOUSE, CHERMBU, KERALA
             ESTATE P.O., NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.
             P.SAMSUDIN
             SRI.M.ANUROOP



RESPONDENT/S:

      1      THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
             MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION-676 505, MALAPPURAM
             DISTRICT.

      2      THE TAHSILDAR NILAMBUR,
             TALUK OFFICE NILAMBUR, NILAMBUR P.O.679 329,
             MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

      3      VILLAGE OFFICER,
             KERALA ESTATE, KALIKAVU P.O.NILAMBUR TALUK,
             MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 525.



             SRI SAYED M THANGAL, GP


       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   02.08.2021,    THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 23428 OF 2020               2




                            JUDGMENT

Being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the revenue authorities

in effecting transfer of registry in respect of an item of property over which,

the petitioner holds absolute title and possession and to remit land tax, this

writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking

directions.

2. The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner in possession of

property having an extent of 0.0556 hectares comprised in Survey No.17/11

of Kerala Estate Village. The said property, which is covered under Ext.P1

patta issued in favour of Sri. Velu, was purchased by him vide Document

No.1976/1/2018 of Melattur SRO from the legal heirs of the aforesaid Velu.

The petitioner contends that his predecessors in interest have been in

absolute possession of the land from 1956 onwards and they had been

remitting tax as is evident from Ext.P2. It is on the strength of Ext.P3

assignment deed that the property was purchased by the petitioner.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that his attempt to effect

mutation and pay land tax with respect to the property covered under

Exhibit P1 is not being considered by the / on the ground that the property

is situated in Kerala Estate Village. According to the petitioner,

fragmentation of plantation by itself is not a ground to refuse acceptance of

basic land tax.

a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any writ, order or direction

directing the respondents to accept land tax with respect of

0.0556 Hr (13.7) cents of land in Survey Number 17/11 in

Kerala Estate Village in Nilambur Taluk in Malappuram District,

in the interest of justice.

4. I have heard Sri.P. Samsudin, the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and Sri. Syed.M.Thangal, the learned Government Pleader.

5. Sri.P. Samsudin, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

would rely on the judgments of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 36470/2018, W.P.

(C) No.8898/2019 and W.P.(C) No. 13139/2019 and it is argued that this

Court had occasion to consider identical issues earlier and the consistent

stand taken by this Court is that even if exempted land is used in

contravention of the purpose for which exemption is granted, the authorities

can only proceed against the property in accordance with the provisions of

the Land Reforms Act. However, they cannot refuse to accept the basic tax

or fail to carry out mutation, if so requested. It is contended that transfer of

registry is only for fiscal purposes.

6. Sri. Sayed M. Thangal, the learned Government Pleader, on

instructions submitted that the entire applications are now being processed

online and since the details related to Exhibit P3 deed has not been included

in the database, the respondents have difficulty in considering the

application. It is submitted that the petitioner may apply under Form 1A of

the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 and also produce necessary documents

before the Statutory Authority concerned, who will be able to consider the

application for mutation and pass appropriate orders after getting a report

of the same from the village officer.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced.

8. It is by now settled that grant of mutation and acceptance of basic

land tax will not result in the conferment of title. If there is any violation of

the provisions of any of the statutes, the authorities can very well proceed

against the petitioner in accordance with law.

9. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to file an application

under Form 1A of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, and seek mutation

with supporting documents. If such an application is filed, the competent

among the respondents shall consider the same, if it is in order, and pass

orders expeditiously, in any event, within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If mutation is carried out, the

land tax offered by the petitioner shall be accepted.

This writ petition will stand disposed of with the above directions.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE ps/3/8/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23428/2020

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA NO 4082/1976

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 12.4.2018 IN THE NAME OF RAVI

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED NO 1976/1/2018 OF SRO MELATTUR.

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS    :   NIL