Pathummakutty vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 4661 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

     TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942

                       W.P.(C) No.1812 OF 2021(B)


PETITIONER/S:

                PATHUMMAKUTTY
                AGED 59 YEARS
                D/O PARAKKAL MUHAMMAD, OZHUKOOR (PO), MORAYOOR,
                MALAPPURAM DISTRICT ,PIN-673 642.

                BY ADV. SRI.K.DILIP

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE STATE OF KERALA
                REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
                GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-01.

      2         THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
                ELANKOOR VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 122.


OTHER PRESENT:

                SMT A.C.VIDHYA - GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.1812 OF 2021(B)

                                      2

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner in possession of

7 ares and 47 cents of land comprised in Survey No.220/1 and

221/1 of Elankoor Village covered by Ext.P1 jenm assignment deed

No.6267/2008 dated 20.09.2008 of Sub Registrar Office, Wandoor

and Ext.P2 tax receipt dated 26.04.2018 issued by the 2 nd

respondent Village Officer and Ext.P3 purchase certificate dated

28.07.2006 issued by Land Tribunal, Manjeri, has filed this writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an

appropriate writ commanding the 2 nd respondent Village Officer to

permit her to remit land tax with respect to Ext.P1 property and to

accept the same.

2. On 22.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for

admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get

instructions.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also

the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

4. During the course of arguments, the learned

Government Pleader would point out on account of the pendency

of ceiling case No. C.R.No.603/77/M4 of the Taluk Land Board,

Eranad dated 20.10.2020 .

5. In Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner [(2007) 6 W.P.(C) No.1812 OF 2021(B)

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.

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 W.P.(C) No.1812 OF 2021(B)

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. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to

supra, the mere pendency of ceiling case, C.R.No.603/77/M4

before the Taluk Land Board, Eranad, will not be a bar on the 2 nd

respondent Village Officer in accepting land tax in respect of the

property owned by the petitioner, covered by Ext.P1 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 2nd respondent to consider the request made by the

petitioner to accept land tax of the property covered by Ext.P1 title

deed, if there are 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 MIN W.P.(C) No.1812 OF 2021(B)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JENM ASSIGNMENT DEED NO 6267/2008 DATED 20.9.2008

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 26.4.2018

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO 880/2006 ISSUED BY LAND TRIBUNAL MANJERI DATED 28.7.2006

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DATED 11.1.2021