Kerala High Court
Rajan C.P vs The District Collector on 23 June, 2021
WP(C) NO. 29011 OF 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 29011 OF 2020
PETITIONERS :
1 RAJAN C.P.,
AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O.PAPPU, CHAKKARAYIL HOUSE, UPPUTHARA P.O.,
PATHEKKAR KARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685505.
2 BABY K.K.,
AGED 55 YEARS,
S/O.KUTTY, KUTTIKKALAYIL, UPPUTHARA P.O.,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685505.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
SRI.K.K.AKHIL
RESPONDENTS :
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI, PIN-685603.
2 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, PEERMADE, IDUKKI, PIN-685531.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, UPPUTHARA, IDUKKI, PIN-685505.
4 ADDL R4 IMPLEADED
STATE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COLLECTOR FOR LAND REFORMS,
LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695 001.
ADDL R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05-03-2021 IN IA
1/2021 IN WP(C)29011/2020.
SMT. K. AMMINIKUTTY, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 29011 OF 2020 2
JUDGMENT
The 1st petitioner is the owner in title and possession of property having an
extent of 14.16 Ares of dry land situated in old Survey No.338 of Upputhara Village.
He is stated to have acquired the property on the strength of Ext.P1 sale deed
No.2624/2017 of the Peermade Sub Registrar's Office. The 2nd petitioner is stated to
be the owner in title and possession of property having an extent of 1.82 Ares of dry
land situated in Survey No.274/04-2 of Upputhara village, which was purchased by
him as per Ext.P2 Sale deed No.1486/2016 of the Peermade SRO. They contend that
when they approached the respondents for effecting mutation and for issuance of
revenue records in their name, their request was not acceded to. According to the
petitioners, the respondents are refusing to effect mutation and accept tax on the
ground that the property is situated within the Survey number of certain properties in
which the Special Officer appointed by the Government had submitted a report. The
Village Officer while refusing the request by Exts.P3 and P4 orders have also noted
that by order dated 6.6.2020 vide No. 172 of 2019 of the Government, there is a
direction that the issuance of certificates will be subject to the proceedings instituted
by the Government. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioners have approached
this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to effect mutation of the properties
of the petitioners covered under Exts.P1 & P2 and also to issue Location Sketch,
Possession Certificate and RoR (Record of Rights) without any adverse endorsement
and also to pay basic tax.
2. Sri. T.A.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel submits that the proceedings
of the Special Officer were set aside by this Court by judgment dated 7.11.2018 in
W.P.(C) No.40002 of 2016 and connected cases, wherein it was held by this Court
that the proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act can be invoked only for the
purpose of resumption or removal of encroachment from Government lands and not
in respect of property owned by individuals and obtained by deeds which have been
legally executed and registered in accordance with law. This Court had further held
that in those cases where the individuals have raised a valid claim to title, the State
will have to institute appropriate civil proceedings to establish its title. The petitioners
also relies on judgment dated 18.2.2019 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4647 of 2019
wherein this Court had held that no restrictions can be imposed on the right of the
petitioner therein to remit basic tax on the strength of title deeds subject of course to
the adjudication of title if any in a properly instituted suit by the Government.
Reliance is also placed on judgment dated 18.3.2019 in W.P(C) No.7641 of 2019
wherein this Court following the earlier precedents had directed the revenue
authorities not to make any endorsement in any revenue certificates or other
documents with regard to the claim now being raised by the Government.
3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and have considered the
submissions made across the Bar.
4. The property rights devolved upon the petitioners on the strength of
Ext.P1 & P2 sale deeds. In the judgments referred to by the learned counsel, this
Court has held that proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act cannot be invoked
in cases where the party concerned has valid title over the property. In such cases,
the State will have to institute appropriate civil proceedings to establish its title. Until
the civil court holds against the petitioners on the basis of evidence let in, no
embargo can be placed on their right to enjoy their property or in dealing with the
same in the manner they choose. I respectfully concur with the above view.
5. In that view of the matter, I direct the competent among respondents
to issue revenue certificates such as Location Sketch, RoR, Possession Certificate in
respect of property covered under Exhibits P1 & P2, on the petitioners making an
application and on remitting the requisite fees, without marking any adverse
endorsements. However, it is made clear that the above order will be subject to the
adjudication of the title in a Civil Suit, if any, instituted by the State.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
IAP
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29011/2020
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2624/17 OF
SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, PEERMADE.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1486/16 OF
SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, PEERMADE.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.11.2020
ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.3.19
ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.11.2020
IN WP(C)19377/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL
