Ismail vs The Land Revenue Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 3667 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942

                  WP(C).No.26970 OF 2020(U)

PETITIONER/S:
            ISMAIL, AGED 58 YEARS
            S/O IMBICHI BAVA, ILLICKAL HOUSE,
            PERUVALLOOR P O, PERUVALLOOR VILLAGE,
            THIRURANGADI TALUK,
            MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-683638.

             BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ

RESPONDENT/S:
      1     THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
            OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,
            PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM ROAD,
            OPPOSITE ZOO, VIKHAS BHAVAN P O,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695033.

     2       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION,
             MALAPPURAM-676505.

     3       THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRURANGADI,
             MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676303.

     4       THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUVALLOOR,
             THIRURANGADI TALUK,
             MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.673636.

     5       TALUK LAND BOARD, THIRURANGADI,
             MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676306.
             REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

             R1-5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

OTHER PRESENT:
            SMT A.C.VIDHYA- GOVERNMENT PLEADER

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                   -2-
W.P.(C). No. 26970 of 2020



                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus

commanding the 4th respondent Village Officer to accept land

tax from the petitioner with regard to the property having an

extent of 4.95 Ares in Re.Sy.No.165/3A and 3B of Peruvalloor

Village, covered by Ext.P1 sale deed bearing No.3539/1991 of

Sub Registrar Office, Thenjipalam, and Ext.P2 purchase

certificate. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of

mandamus commanding the 4th respondent to accept the

land tax with respect to the property described in Ext.P1 title

deed from the petitioner, while he possesses the same; and

also direction to the 4th respondent to issue necessary

possession certificate with respect to the property covered by

Ext.P1 title deed to the petitioner when he prefer the

application for the same.

2. On 07.12.2020, when this writ petition came up for

admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to

get instructions.

W.P.(C). No. 26970 of 2020

3. A statement has been filed by the 3 rd respondent

opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Paragraphs

4 and 5 of the same read thus:

"4. It is submitted that the Taluk Land Board, Tirurangadi had decided the ceiling as orders dated 18.03.2006, 26.02.2013. As per order dated 18.03.2006, the Taluk Land Board had directed the declarant to surrender 218.52 Acres of land. The petitioner's land was included in the order dated 18.03.2006. The Taluk Land Board order was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 12.07.2007 in C.R.P No.601/2006 and directed the Taluk Land Board to pass fresh orders. Accordingly the Taluk Land Board issued revised order dated 26.02.2013 and ordered to surrender 2.291 Acres of excess land from Re.Sy.No.165/3 of Peruvallur Village, among others. The petitioner's land is comprised in Re.Sy.No.165/3.

5. It is submitted that against the ceiling case No.CR 522/73, the legal heirs of declarant approached Hon'ble Court by filing C.R.P No.141/13 and the Hon'ble Court granted stay on 26.03.2013. Now the CRP is under consideration of the Hon'ble Court. In this circumstances the 3rd and 4th respondents are not in a position to accept the basic tax for the property of the petitioner. Further, for a land involved in ceiling case, it is not possible to

W.P.(C). No. 26970 of 2020

accept the basic tax without prior permission from the Taluk Land Board concerned."

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents.

5. In Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner [(2007)

6 SCC 186] the Apex Court reiterated that an entry in revenue

records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in

'record of rights'. The entries in revenue records or jamabandi have

only 'fiscal purpose', i.e., payment of land revenue and no

ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as the

title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a

competent Civil Court [vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh (1993) 4

SCC 403].

6. In Sudan K.K. and others v. State of Kerala and

others [2013 (4) KHC 201] this Court held that the

pendency of civil suit can ever be a bar with regard to the

acceptance of land tax, unless specifically restrained from

accepting the tax by virtue of any order passed by the court.

W.P.(C). No. 26970 of 2020

7. In Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (died through

legal heirs) v. Arther Import and Export Company and

Others [(2019) 3 SCC 191] the Apex Court reiterated that

the law on the question of mutation in the revenue records

pertaining to any land and what is its legal value while

deciding the rights of the parties is fairly well settled by a

series of decisions of this Court. The Court has consistently

held that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not

create or extinguish the title over such land nor it has any

presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in

whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in

question. [see:Sawarni (Smt.) v. Inder Kaur (1996) 6

SCC 223, Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (1997) 7 SCC

137 and Narasamma v. State of Karnataka (2009) 5 SCC

591)].

8. Having considered the pleadings and materials on

record and also the submissions made by the learned counsel

on both sides, this Court finds that mere pendency of

W.P.(C). No. 26970 of 2020

C.R.P.No.141 of 2013 before this Court, filed by the legal heirs

of the declarant in ceiling case No.CR.No.522 of 1973 of the

Taluk Land Board, Tirurangadi, or the order of stay granted in

that C.R.P. on 26.03.2013 will not be a bar on the 4 th

respondent Village Officer in accepting land tax for the

property owned by the petitioner covered by Ext.P1 sale deed,

since mutation of a land in the revenue records or payment of

land tax does not create or extinguish the title over the

property nor has it any presumptive value on the title.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by

directing the 4th respondent to consider the request made by

the petitioner to accept land tax of the property covered by

Ext.P1 title deed, if there is no other legal impediments, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three

weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this

judgment.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE das

W.P.(C). No. 26970 of 2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED DATED 06.12.1991 REGISTERED IN THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE THENHIPPALAM.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DATED 21.05.1977 ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL VENGARA-1.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 26.12.1991 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 02.05.2007 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.