Kerala High Court
Raju vs State Of Kerala on 30 July, 2021
WP(C) NO. 16350 OF 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 16350 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:
RAJU,
AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O NANUPILLA, RESIDING AT KARAKKATTUKUNNEL HOUSE,
SEETHATHOD.P.O, KUMARAM PEROOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA -689667.
BY ADVS.
M.JAYAKRISHNAN
SRI.R.ANOOP
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA .P.O,
PATHANAMTHITTA -689645.
3 THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA-689691.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHITTAR VILLAGE OFFICE, CHITTAR.P.O,
PATHANAMTHITTA-689663.
WP(C) NO. 16350 OF 2020 2
5 THE SUB REGISTRAR,
PERINADU SUB REGISTRY, PERINADU.P.O,
PERINADU, PATHANAMTHITTA-689571.
SMT K AMMINIKUTTY, SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 16350 OF 2020 3
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the revenue authorities in
effecting transfer of registry 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 4.05 Ares falling in Sy. No 946/6 of
Chittar Village. He had purchased the property on the strength of Ext.P1
assignment deed. The petitioner contends that immediately thereafter, he
approached the 4th respondent and filed Ext.P2 application seeking to effect
the transfer of registry and to pay basic tax. The petitioner states that the 4th
respondent refused to accept his application on the ground that the said
property was earlier a plantation and was excluded from the ceiling limit of
excess land as per Land Reforms Act. According to the petitioner,
fragmentation of plantation by itself is not a ground to refuse acceptance of
basic land tax after effecting mutation. It is in the above backdrop that the
petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4th respondent to accept
and consider Ext.P2 application and to take necessary steps on the
same within a time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
b) Issue directions to the respondents 3 to 5 to effect transfer of
registry in respect of the property obtained by the petitioner based on
Ext.P1 sale deed.
3. I have heard Sri.M. Jayakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Smt.A.C.Vidya, the learned Government Pleader.
4. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that section 81
of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is a special provision, with its main objective
of giving exemption to certain lands including the lands maintained as
plantations. It is contended that fragmentation of land which may lead to its
conversion is prohibited as per the provisions of the Act. The records would
reveal that the property of the petitioner was part of plantation land and as it
has been converted in violation to the provisions of the Act, the declarant will
have to be proceeded against. Necessary proceedings are being initiated
against the original declarant.
5. I have considered the submissions made across the Bar.
6. Ext.P1 sale deed shows that the petitioner had acquired title over
the property covered under the deed on 6.2.2020. The reason assigned by
the respondents for refusing to consider the application filed by the petitioner
is that the property owned by the petitioner was part of a larger extent of
properties categorised as plantation thus entitling them to an exemption
under Sec.81(1) (e) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964. A Division Bench
of this Court in the common judgment dated 04.04.2017 in W.A.Nos.564 &
612 of 2017 has held that the question as to whether the subsequent
purchasers would be actually using the lands in question for non-exempted
purposes and thus violating the exemption clause would arise only when they
actually use of the land for non exempted purposes and not at the stage
when they seek revenue records. It was further held that State authorities are
at liberty to raise all such contentions and objections at the appropriate time
when a cause of action in that regard actually arises. Furthermore, this Court
in Devassia v. Sub Registrar [2015(1) KLT 825] has held 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.
Resultantly, this petition will stand allowed. There will be a direction to
the competent among respondents to take up Ext.P2 application filed by the
petitioner and effect transfer of registry and to accept tax within a period of 8
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear
that it would be open to the State to initiate appropriate proceedings under
the Land Reforms Act if a case is made out and in such event, the same shall
be in strict adherence to law and with due notice to all concerned.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
NS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16350/2020
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.139/2020 OF
SUB REGISTER OFFICE PERUNAD DATED
06.02.2020.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICAITON FOR
TRANSFER OF REGISTRY DATED 06.02.2020.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.943259
DATED 01.O6.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
10.02.2020 IN WP(C)NO.2248 OF 2020 ON THE
FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL
