Kerala High Court
Prabhakaran vs The District Collector on 11 August, 2021
WP(C) NO. 26246 OF 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 26246 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
PRABHAKARAN
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. ITTEERI, MOOKKATHILMATTIL HOUSE, PERUVALLOOR
POST, PERUVALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
K.P.SUDHEER
SMT.C.K.SHERIN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM - 676505.
2 THE TAHASILDAR
TIRURANGADI TALUK, TIRURANGADI,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 306.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
PERUVALLUR, PADIKKAL - KARUVANKALLU ROAD, PARAMBIL
PEEDIKA, PERUVALLUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 676317.
4 THE TALUK LAND BOARD
TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676306,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
SRI SAYED M THANGAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER
WP(C) NO. 26246 OF 2020 2
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 26246 OF 2020 3
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents in
accepting basic land tax from the petitioner in respect of an item of property
over which, the petitioner holds absolute title and possession, 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 title and
possession of the property admeasuring 4.409 Ares falling in Re-Sy. No 197/1
of Peruvallur Village. He had acquired the property on the strength of Ext.P1
assignment deed. According to the petitioner, a reading of Ext.P2 prior title
deed would reveal that the Jenmam right in respect of the property was
purchased from the Land Tribunal, Vengara in S.M.No.387/1972. It is
contended that the petitioner has been remitting basic tax in respect of the
property as is evident from Ext.P3 tax receipt.
3. The petitioner states that since 2006, the respondents have
refused to accept basic tax on the ground that ceiling proceedings are
pending against the original declarant. Aggrieved by the above, the petitioner
is stated to have approached the 1st respondent and submitted Ext.P5
application. The said application was forwarded to respondents 2 and 3 for
appropriate action. He contends that he has been served with Ext.P6 letter
informing him that he needs to approach the 4th respondent and secure
orders in order to enable the revenue authorities to accept tax. The petitioner
contends that immediately thereafter the petitioner approached the 4th
respondent and filed Ext.P7 representation. Along with Exhibit P7, he has also
filed an application under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The
petitioner relies on Ext.P8 judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C) No.
25115/2016, wherein orders have been issued directing the revenue
authorities to accept basic tax despite the fact that ceiling proceedings are
pending against the original declarant. According to the petitioner, he is
similarly placed and the respondents are not justified in refusing to permit him
to remit tax in respect of the property. It is in the above backdrop that the
petitioner is before this Court seeking directions to the 3rd respondent to
accept land tax in respect of the property covered under Ext.P1 and for a
further direction to the 4th respondent to pass final orders on Ext.P7 in the
light of Ext.P8 judgment.
4. A statement has been filed by the 2nd respondent wherein it is
stated that the predecessor of the petitioner had obtained purchase
certificate from the Land Tribunal, Vengara and it was on its basis that the
Village Officer had accepted basic tax from the petitioner. However, from
the year 2006 onwards, tax is not being accepted as the subject matter
property is involved in ceiling proceedings pending before the Taluk Land
Board, Tirurangadi against the original declarant. It is further stated that the
Taluk Land Board, Thirurangadi had directed the original declarant to
surrender 218.52 acres of land as per orders issued in C.R. No 522/73/A6
dated 18.03.2006. The land in the possession of the petitioner is among the
properties covered under the above order. It is stated that the order passed
by the Taluk Land Board was set aside by this Court as per judgment dated
12.07.2007 in CRP No. 601/2006 and the TLB was directed to pass fresh
orders in the matter. In terms of the directions issued, the TLB has passed
fresh orders as per which as many as 66 claim petitions filed under Section
85 (8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 has been rejected. The land in
possession of the petitioner is one among the properties covered under the
rejection order. It is further stated that challenging the order passed by the
Taluk Land Board, the legal heirs of the original declarant have preferred
CRP(LR) 141 of 2013 and this Court has stayed the orders.
5. I have heard Smt.Anjali Menon, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Sri. Sayed M. Thangal, the learned Government
Pleader.
6. Ext.P1 sale deed shows that the petitioner had acquired title
over the property covered under the deed on 11.8.1997. Exhibit P3 would
reveal that basic tax was being accepted by the 3rd respondent and it
continued till 2006. It was thereafter that respondents 2 and 3 refused to
accept basic tax on the ground that ceiling proceedings are pending against
the original declarant and the property purchased by the petitioner is also
included in the proceedings. In Devassia v. Sub Registrar [2015(1) KLT
825] this Court had occasion to hold that the provisions of the KLR Act do not
place an embargo on transfer. The transfer of registry being for fiscal
purposes, it is open to the competent authority to reopen the ceiling
proceedings to include the land exempted for the purpose of the ceiling and
the same would not be lost on account of effecting mutation. In view of the
principles above, the respondents are obliged in law to consider the request
of the petitioner without being burdened down by the provisions of the Land
Reforms Act. This was the view taken by this Court in Exhibit P8 judgment.
Resultantly, this petition will stand allowed. There will be a direction to
the competent among respondents to take up Ext.P5 application filed by the
petitioner and accept tax within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the above order shall be
subject to the orders passed by this Court in CRP(LR) 141 of 2013 and the
orders passed by the 4th respondent in such proceedings.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
NS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26246/2020
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 11.08.1997
REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.2256/1997 OF
TENHIPALAM SRO.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PARTITION DEED DATED
15.11.1994 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT
NO.3854/1994 OF TENHIPALAM SRO.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
05.04.2005 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER, BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED
28.06.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO
THE FIRST EXECUTANT TO EXHIBIT P2
PARTITION DEED.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 20.01.2020
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.B3-3459/20 DATED
02.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 06.11.2020
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 08.11.2016 IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.25115/2016 PASSED
BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL
