Kerala High Court
Malankara Syrian Catholicate vs The District Collector on 4 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.11057 OF 2020(F)
PETITIONER:
MALANKARA SYRIAN CATHOLICATE
DIOCESE OF PATHANAMTHITTA REP. BY ITS HEAD REV.
SAMUEL MAR IRENEOS METROPOLITAN, S/O.K.C.THOMAS,
AGED 67, CATHOLIC BISHOP HOUSE, PATHANAMTHITTA .
BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.
2 THE TAHASILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, SEETHATHODE VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA-689 667
4 G.SUGATHAN,
S/O. GOPALAN, SANGAMAM, KOTTA P.O.
KIDANGANNOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 504.
R1-R3 SMT SHEEJA CS, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ
R4 BY ADV. SRI.RENJIT GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.01.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).11062/2020(G), THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).Nos.11057 OF 2020
& 11062 of 2020 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.11062 OF 2020(G)
PETITIONER:
MALANKARA SYRIAN CATHOLICATE,
DIOCESE OF PATHANAMTHITTA, REP BY ITS HEAD
REV. SAMUEL MAR IRENEOS METROPOLITAN,
S/O K.C.THOMAS, AGD 67, CATHOLIC BISHOP HOUSE,
PATHANAMTHITTA.
BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANILAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.
2 THE TAHASILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, SEETHATHODE VILLAGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA-689 667.
4 SHERLY,
W/O G.SUGATHAN, SANGAMAM, KOTTA P.O.
KIDANGANNOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 504.
R1-R3 SMT MABLE C KURIAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
04.01.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).11057/2020(F), THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).Nos.11057 OF 2020
& 11062 of 2020 3
JUDGMENT
[ WP(C).11057/2020, WP(C).11062/2020 ]
The above-captioned writ petitions are filed by the Malankara Syrian
Catholicate seeking to quash the communication issued by the Village Officer,
Seethathode village, which has been produced as Ext.P2 in both the cases, by
which the request of the petitioner to effect transfer of registry and to permit them
to pay basic tax was turned down. Their prayer in these writ petitions is to quash
Ext.P2 and for issuance of directions to the 2nd respondent to accept land tax and
effect transfer of registry in respect of the property covered by the sale deeds
produced as Ext.P1 in both the cases. In view of the nature of issues raised, both
these writ petitions are taken up and disposed of by a common judgment.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that two items of property were
purchased by the petitioner on the strength of sale deed No. 1304/19 and 1305/19
registered at the Perinad Sub Registrar's Office. Document No.1304/19 was
executed by a certain Joseph Abraham and document No.1305/19 was executed by
Samuel Abraham and both these documents were executed on 6.11.2019.
Sri.Joseph Abraham and Samuel Abraham had purchased the properties by
separate sale deeds executed by Sri. Sugathan and his wife Sherly. The petitioner
is stated to have approached the village officer contending that he is the
landholder and requested to effect transfer of registry and to pay land tax.
However, by Ext.P2 communication, his request was rejected on the ground that
WP(C).Nos.11057 OF 2020
O.S.No.56/19 has been instituted by Sri.G.Sugathan and his wife Sherly before the
Court of the Subordinate Judge, Pathanamthitta and that the plaintiffs in the said
suit has objected to the transfer of registry. The petitioner was informed that his
request can only be considered after the proceedings before the civil court is
finalized. According to the petitioner, he is a bona fide purchaser for valid
consideration and he has been in title and possession of the property from
6.11.2019. The petitioner contends that as per the provisions of the Land Tax Act,
1961, a person in whose name land is registered has a bounden duty to pay the
tax due and there is a corresponding duty to the revenue authorities to collect the
tax. He would further state that no interdictory orders have been passed by the
civil court restraining the payment of tax by the owner of the property. According
to the petitioner, the pendency of a civil suit is no ground to refuse to effect
mutation as the collection of tax is purely for fiscal purposes. It is in the afore
circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court with these writ petitions.
3. Sri. Sugathan is the 4th respondent in W.P.(C) No.11057 of 2020 and
his wife Smt.Sherly is the 4th respondent in W.P.(C) No.11062/2020. They have
filed counter affidavits stating more or less the same contentions. According to the
4th respondent, the sale deed executed by him/her in favour of the assignees are
sham documents. It is further contended that the property assigned is part of a
property where a school by name 'Gurukulam U.P.School, Angamoozhi' is
functioning. Sri.Sugathan is the Manager of the said school. It is further
contended that under Section 6(1) of the Kerala Education Act, sale, mortgage,
WP(C).Nos.11057 OF 2020
lease, charge or transfer of possession in respect of any property of an aided
school can only be made with the previous permission in writing of an officer not
below the rank of District Educational Officer and any transaction made in
contravention of the said provision is null and void. It is further contended that
Sugathan and his wife have approached the Subordinate Court, Pathanamthitta
and have instituted O.S.No.56/2019 arraying Sri. Samuel Abraham and Joseph
Abraham as defendants seeking for a declaration that the sale deeds executed by
them in the year 2015 in their favour are sham documents and also for declaring
their title and possession. They had also filed an application for interim injunction
and by order dated 14.9.2020, the defendants have been restrained from
disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and
also in exercising the right of the 1st plaintiff as Manager of the school. It is
contended that as Sugathan and his wife are still in possession of the suit property,
the Revenue authorities were well justified in refusing the request made by the
petitioner.
4. Sri.C.S.Manilal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
referred to the decisions of this Court in Rajkumar S. and Others v. Tahsildar,
Devikulam (2020 (3) KHC 270), Sudan K.K. and Ors. V. State of Kerala and
Ors. (2013 (4) KHC 201), George Pothen and Others v. State of Kerala and
Others (2018 (4) KHC 7958) and in Larson T. George v. State of Kerala
(2018 (5) KHC 960), and contended that a landholder is liable to pay tax and the
same is bound to be accepted by the revenue authorities. He would contend that
WP(C).Nos.11057 OF 2020
in Sawarni (Smt.) v. Inderkaur (Smt.) and Others (1996 KHC 964), the
Supreme Court has held that mutation of property and acceptance of land tax will
not, by itself either create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on
title and it only enables the person in whose favour the mutation has been effected
to pay land revenue in question. According to the learned counsel, the sole ground
on which transfer of registry was refused was the pendency of the civil suit.
5. Sri.K.Shaj, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent in
the writ petitions, contended that a suit for declaring the sale deeds as sham
documents is pending and there is also an order of injunction in favour of the
plaintiffs. Until finality is attained in the said suit, the revenue authorities have no
jurisdiction to accede to the request of the petitioner is the submission.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced. In Ext.P2
communication issued by the Village Officer, the only reason stated is that
Sri.Sugathan has objected to the request made by the petitioner to effect transfer
of registry on the ground that he has instituted a civil suit. No other reasons are
seen stated.
7. Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 states thus:
"The summary enquiry and the decision thereon is only an
arrangement for fiscal purposes and does not affect the legal
rights of any person in respect of the lands covered by the
decisions in transfer of registry cases. The question of legal
rights is always subject to adjudication by civil courts and
pattas will be revised from time to time in accordance with
judicial decisions."
WP(C).Nos.11057 OF 2020
8. In other words, carrying out mutation is only an arrangement for
fiscal purposes and will not affect the legal rights of any person in respect of the
lands covered by the decision of the revenue authority in transfer of registry
cases. The legal rights of the parties can only be adjudicated by the civil courts. If
the civil court interferes and adjudicates on the right, the revenue authorities are
bound to revise their decision.
9. In Thulasibhai C.C.v. State of Kerala [2010 (4) KLT 215], this
Court had held that even if revenue recovery proceedings are pending, there is no
prohibition either in the Revenue Recovery Act or in the Transfer of Registry Rules
against effecting mutation. In Sudan K.K. Ors. V. State of Kerala and Ors.
[2013 (4) KLT 563], it was held by this Court that the pendency of a civil suit can
never be a bar with regard to the acceptance of land tax unless specifically
restrained by any order passed by the Court. A Division Bench of this Court in
Sivasankaran K. v. Tahsildar, Manjeri and Ors. [2017 (3) KLT 428] relying on
a decision of the Apex Court in Balwant Singh and Another v. Daulat Singh
(Dead) by LRs and Ors. [(1997) 7 SCC 137] has held that mutation entries in
revenue records by itself does not create any right, title or interest in the property
and it is merely a record for the purpose of collection of land revenue. None of
these aspects were taken note of by the Village Officer while refusing the request
of the petitioner.
10. In that view of the matter, the 2nd respondent shall reconsider the
WP(C).Nos.11057 OF 2020
application filed by the petitioner under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966.
Before passing orders, the 2nd respondent shall hear the petitioner as well as the
objectors. Orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment and in tune with the directions above and in
accordance with law.
These writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
IAP
WP(C).Nos.11057 OF 2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11057/2020
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED
7.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE
VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 28.1.2020.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 56/2019
ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.9.2020 IN
IA NO 487/2019 IN OS NO 56/2019 ON THE
FILES OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE,
PATHANAMTHITTA
WP(C).Nos.11057 OF 2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11062/2020
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 7.11.2019
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE
VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 28.1.2020
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 56/2019 ON
THE FILE OF SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/9/2020 IN
IA 487/2019 IN O.S. 56/2019 ON THE FILES OF
THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, PATHANAMTHITTA
