Kerala High Court
Sumesh T.G vs State Of Kerala on 28 June, 2021
WP(C) NO. 10953 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 10953 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
SUMESH T.G.
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O.THANKACHAN, CHAKKUMKUZHIYIL, HEAVENVALI,
K.CHAPPATH P.O., PIN - 685 505.
BY ADVS.
REJEESH M.A.
SRI.ANOOP ANTONY
SMT.VARADA SURENDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
IDUKKI DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI, PIN - 685 603.
3 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE
PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 531.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KUMALI VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
PIN - 685 533.
SMT AMMINIKUTTY K, SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10953 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner in title and possession
of property having an extent of 4.05 Ares in survey No.204/1-1-2 of Kumaly
village. The said property was acquired by the petitioner on the cover of
Exhibit P1 & P2 sale deeds. He contends that he has effected mutation in his
favour and has been paying land tax. He applied before the revenue authorities
and they have issued possession certificate as well as location certificate to the
petitioner. As the petitioner required 'Nijasthithi certificate', he approached the
3rd respondent and submitted a request. It is contended that a report was
called for from the 4th respondent and the said authority has issued Ext.P7
recommending the issuance of the certificate. However, by Ext.P8 order, the
3rd respondent refused to issue revenue records on the ground that the Land
Resumption Commissioner has interdicted the same. The petitioner contends
that this Court by Ext.P9 and P10 judgments have directed the concerned
Village Officers to issue the revenue certificates without any adverse entries. It
is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court
seeking to quash Ext.P8 and for a further direction to the 3rd respondent to
issue revenue certificate as requested for in respect of properties covered
under Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds.
2. I have heard Sri. Rejeesh M.A., the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. Sri. Rejeesh submitted that the order passed by the Special officer
has been set aside by this Court by judgment in W.P.(C) No.40002 of 2016 and
connected cases. While setting aside the order, it was held that that
proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act, 1957, 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.
The revenue authorities were ordered to accept basic tax from the petitioners
therein on the strength of the title deeds relied on by them subject to
adjudication of title in proceedings, if any, initiated by the Government.
4. I have heard the learned Government Pleader as well and have
considered the submissions made across the Bar.
5. Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds show that the petitioner has acquired
title over the property covered under the deed. He has effected mutation and
has been paying tax. His request for issuance of 'Nijasthithi certificate' was
refused in view of certain orders issued by the Land Resumption
Commissioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, this Court by
judgment dated 7.11.2018 in W.P.(C) No.40002 of 2016 had interfered with
the said order and had held that the rights of individuals to enjoy the property
cannot be interdicted by such proceedings. It was further held that the remedy
of the respondent - State Government is to institute appropriate civil suits
before the competent Civil Court in the matter of title and not by issuing the
impugned proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act. The same view has
been taken by this Court in Exts.P9 and P10 judgments as well.
6. The respondents have raised a contention that the property owned
by the petitioner is part of larger extents of properties, which had earlier
secured exemption under Sec.81(1) (e) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964,
on the ground that it is plantation land. It is contended that the fragmented
plots of land are being used for non exempted purposes and therefore illegal. 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
petitioners-landowners 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 quarrying purposes and not at the stage
when they seek a Possession Certificate for any such prospective use and that
those objections and contentions are not relevant and germane for refusal of
issuance of such revenue certificates and that the respondent-State authorities
are fully at liberty to raise all such contentions and such objections at the
appropriate time when a cause of action in that regard actually arises. In view
of the said judgment, 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. Furthermore, this Court in Devassia v. Sub Registrar
[2015(1) KLT 825] has held that the provisions of the KLR Act do not place any
embargo on transfer and the transfer of registry is for fiscal purposes on
transfer and that said Act also does not curtail fragmentation of exempted
lands from the purview of ceiling, but that exempted category of land, to have
continuity of the qualification of exemption, the alienee or the transferee shall
use the land for any of the purposes, for which exemption would be granted
and if the land is used for a non-exempted purpose, either before or after the
purchase, then certainly the respondent-State authorities may have the
competence to take appropriate action as is warranted on law and facts, in
that regard. In that view of the matter, the contention forcefully advanced by
the learned Government Pleader cannot be sustained.
Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the concerned
respondent to forthwith take up the request made by the petitioner for
issuance of revenue certificates including the 'Nijasthithi certificate' as
recommended by the 4th respondent in Ext.P7 in respect of the properties
covered under Ext.P1 and P2 and shall issue the same to the petitioner.
Before parting, it is made clear that the directions issued as aforesaid will be
subject to the adjudication of the matters involved in a properly instituted civil
suit or such other proceedings.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
sru
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10953/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2030/2019 OF
PEERMADE SRO.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO.608/1969 OF PEERMADE SRO.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE THANDAPPER
ACCOUNT OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
15/10/2020.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 8/10/2020.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION CERTIFICATE
DATED 31/12/2020.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 21/12/2020
SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.72/2021 DATED
8/1/2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/2/2019
IN W.P(C) NO.4647/2019.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/03/2019
IN W.P.(C) NO.7173/2019.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF GENUINITY
DATED 6/9/2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF SITE APPROVAL & BUILDING
PERMIT DATED 30/12/2020.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
NIL
