Kerala High Court
Viswambharan V.S vs State Of Kerala And Others on 16 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 20182 OF 2010
PETITIONER:
VISWAMBHARAN V.S
SANKARAN VELIYIL HOUSE, ASARIKKAD P.O.,, MULAYAM
VIA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
SMT.M.M.DEEPA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR.
3 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND ASSIGNMENT
THRISSUR.
4 VILLAGE OFFICER PEECHI VILLAGE
THRISSUR DISTRICT.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.MABLE.C.KURIAN, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 16.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.20182/2010
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.20182 of 2010
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2021
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding the respondents to
accept the land tax from the petitioner in respect
of the property covered by Exts.P4, P5 and P6.
ii. Such other writ, order or direction as deemed just
and necessary by this Honourable Court in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Short facts are like this :
According to the petitioner, his father Veliyil Kumari
Sankaran obtained Ext.P1 assignment order and Ext.P3 patta
for a total extent of 2 acres and 55 ½ cents of land comprised
in Sy.No.1397/135/1, 4 of Pananchery Village, which was
changed to Peechi Village. Father of the petitioner paid the
land value in respect of the property on 31.01.1975 and the
title over the land was assigned way back in the year 1975. As
W.P.(C).No.20182/2010
per Ext.P4 settlement deed, an extent of 22.5 cents of land
was given to the petitioner by his father. Out of the total
extent, another 87 cents was given to the brother of the
petitioner by the father. Subsequently as per Ext.P5, the
brother of the petitioner executed another settlement deed as
evident by Ext.P5 in favour of the petitioner. According to the
petitioner, he is in possession of 1 acre 5.5 cents of land.
According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent was accepting
tax from the petitioner till 2001, as evident by Ext.P7.
Thereafter the 4th respondent is not accepting tax. In such
situation, this writ petition is filed.
2. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit. In the
counter affidavit it is stated that most of the pattayams issued
in 1996 by the Special Tahsildar (LA), Thrissur were stayed by
the District Collector noting that the pattayams were granted
against the rules and regulations of the Land Assignment Act
and Rules. Therefore land tax could not be accepted from the
petitioner because of the fact that the land belonging to the
petitioner was obtained through the above mentioned
suspected pattayams. This is the main crux of the contention
of the 2nd respondent. The Government Pleader submitted
W.P.(C).No.20182/2010
that bogus pattas are issued in this area and an enquiry is
going on. In such situation, the 4 th respondent is not in a
position to accept tax.
3. Admittedly the petitioner is in possession of the
property. It is also a fact that Ext.P3 patta was issued in
favour of the father of the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the tax receipt
showing that the father of the petitioner paid tax for the above
land. Ext.P7 is the tax receipt showing that the petitioner paid
tax on 23.06.2001. Thereafter the tax is not accepted saying
that some enquiry is going on about the issue of patta by the
then officer. The writ petition was filed on 28.06.2010. Now
about 11 years over after filing the writ petition. Even now
the Government Pleader submitted that the enquiry is going
on about the correctness of the patta issued. According to me,
the action of the respondents in refusing to accept tax is not
proper. Mutation of property and acceptance of 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, mutation has been effected to pay land revenue
in question (Sawarni v. Inder kaur and others [1996 (6)
SCC 223] and Larson T. George v. State of Kerala [2019
W.P.(C).No.20182/2010
(1) KLT 128]). This Court in Sudan K.K. v. State of Kerala
and others [2013 (4) KLT 563] observed that irrespective
of dispute pending about the title, the land holder is liable to
pay tax and the same is to be accepted by the officers. In such
circumstances, leaving open all contentions of the respondents
about the title, I think there can be a direction to the 4 th
respondent to accept the tax from the petitioner. Of course if
it is found in the pending enquiry that the patta issued to the
petitioner is bogus or invalid, the appropriate proceedings in
accordance to law can be initiated. With such liberty to the
respondents, this writ petition is disposed in the following
manner:
The 4th respondent is directed to accept tax from
the petitioner for the land covered by Exts.P3 to
P6.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
W.P.(C).No.20182/2010
APPENDIX OF W.P.(C) NO.20182/2010
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT
ON REGISTRY DATED 27.03.1974 ISSUED BY
THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND
ASSIGNMENT) THRISSUR UNDER RULE 9(1)
OF THE KERALA LAND ASSIGNMENT RULES,
1964.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
DATED 23.11.1982 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, PANACHERY IN FAVOUR OF
SANKARAN.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA DATED
05.02.1996 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL
TAHSILDAR (LAND ASSIGNMENT), THRISSUR
IN FAVOUR OF SANKARAN.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF SETTLEMENT
DATED 06.05.1989 BEARING NO.1008/1989
OF SUB REGISTRY, OLLUKKARA EXECUTED BY
SANKARAN IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED
NO.1538/1994 DATED 23.04.1994 OF
S.R.O. OLLUKKARA EXECUTED BY VIJAYAN
IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED
NO.5547/1996 OF S.R.O. OLLUKKARA DATED
12.12.1996 EXECUTED BY SANKARAN IN
FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
DATED 23.06.2001 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER.
