Kerala High Court
John Wilson vs The State Of Kerala on 18 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.4610 OF 2021(A)
PETITIONER:
JOHN WILSON
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O JOHN, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
UPPUTHURA P O, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
2 THE STATE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COLLECTOR,
GOVERNMENT LAND RESUMPTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI-685603.
4 THE TAHSILDAR
PEERMADE TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685538.
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
UPPUTHURA VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685505.
SRI.Y.JAFAR KHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.4610 OF 2021(A) 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner in title and
possession of property having an extent of 69.61 Ares in survey
No.338/1-77-1 of Upputhara Village. The said property was acquired on
the cover of Ext.P1 sale deed executed and registered on 23.4.1973.
He has effected mutation in his favor and has been paying tax as is
evident from Exhibit P2 tax receipt. However, in Exhibit P2, an
endorsement has been made that the same is being accepted
provisionally. It is contended that the property covered under Exhibit P1
was originally owned by a certain George and it was after changing
several hands that the same was purchased by the petitioner. Ext.P1(a)
is the encumbrance certificate produced by the petitioner to
substantiate the said fact.
2. The petitioner contend that the provisions of the Land Tax Act,
1961, would not enable the Village officer to issue a tax receipt with an
endorsement that the same is being accepted provisionally. It is
contended that the petitioner approached the revenue authorities and
sought for issuance of Record of Rights certificate, Location sketch,
Possession certificate and other revenue certificates in respect of the
property covered under Ext.P1 sale deed. However, his request was
turned down by the 5th respondent by Ext.P3 order on the ground that
the issuance of revenue certificates have been interdicted by the 3rd
respondent by Ext.P4 proceedings. The petitioner contends that Ext.P4
proceedings of the District Collector was challenged by several persons
and this Court by Ext.P5 judgment dated 7.11.2018 had held that the
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. The petitioner also
rely on Ext.P6 and P7 judgments rendered by this Court relying on the
principles laid by this Court in Ext.P5 judgment. It is in the above
backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to
quash Ext.P3 order and for a further direction to the 5th respondent to
issue revenue certificates such as Possession Certificate, Location
Sketch, Record of Rights etc. in respect of the property covered under
Ext.P1 and to remove the endorsement in Ext.P2 tax receipt.
3. I have heard Sri.Biju C. Abraham, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader.
4. I have considered the submissions made across the Bar.
5. Ext.P1 sale deed shows that the petitioner has acquired title
over the property covered under the deed. He has produced records
showing that transfer of registry has been effected in his favour and he
has been paying tax. However, in the tax receipt, an endorsement has
been made to the effect that the tax is being received provisionally. His
grievance is that when he sought for issuance of Possession
Certificate, ROR Certificate and other revenue records and also for
removing the endorsement in the tax receipt, he was informed that
the revenue records cannot be issued to him in view of Ext.P4
proceedings No.GLR(LR)210/15/PER-TCO dated 12.08.2016 of the
Special Officer and Collector. I find that the above proceeding has
already been set aside by this Court by Ext.P5 judgment dated
07.11.2018 wherein this Court has held that the proceedings issued by
the District Collector cannot be sustained. 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.
In that view of the matter, there is no justification on the part of the
respondents in refusing to issue the certificates sought for by the
petitioner on that count.
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 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 1
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 do 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.
7. However, in view of the concern expressed by the State, it is
made clear that it would be open to the competent among respondents
to proceed against the petitioner under the Land Reforms Act, if a case
is made out and in that event, the same shall be strictly as per
procedure and in accordance with law with due notice to the petitioner.
1[2015(1) KLT 825]
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 like Possession
Certificate, location sketch, ROR certificate, etc. in respect of the
properties covered under Ext.P1 and shall issue the same to the
petitioner. It is also made clear that the tax receipt, if any, issued to the
petitioner, shall not carry out any adverse endorsement. Before parting,
it is made clear that the directions issued as aforesaid will be subject to
the adjudication of the title in a Civil Suit, if any, instituted by the State.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
NS
//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.344/1973
DATED 13/4/1973 OF PEERMADE SRO.
EXHIBIT P1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
DATED 27/11/2020.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
25/09/2020.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/10/2020
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.GLR(LR)
210/15/PER-TCO DATED 12/8/2016 OF THE
SPECIAL OFFICER AND COLLECTOR.
EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE GO NO. 172/2019 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 6/6/2019.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7/11/2018
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC
NO.40002/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/2/2019
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC
NO.4647/2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 13/7/2020 IN
WPC NOS. 13736/2020(N).
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL
