Kerala High Court
Agul Bhaskar 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.21173 OF 2020(V)
PETITIONER:
AGUL BHASKAR
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O.V.V. BHASI, NOW RESIDING AT VAHUVALIL HOUSE,
UPPUTHARA P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 505.
BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 THE STATE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COLLECTOR,
GOVERNMENT LAND RESUMPTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, COLLECOTRATE, IDUKKI 685 603.
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 538.
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
UPPUTHARA VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 505.
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.21173 OF 2020(V) 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.338/17-6 of Upputhara Village. The said property was acquired by
the petitioner on the cover of Exhibit P1 sale deed executed and
registered on 1.1.2020. It is contended that the property covered under
Exhibit P1 was originally owned by Sri. Devassia and Sri. Joseph and it
was after changing several hands that the same was purchased by the
petitioner. Exhibit P2 is the encumbrance certificate produced by the
petitioner to substantiate the said fact.
2. According to the petitioner, when he approached the 5th
respondent to effect transfer of registry and to pay tax by submitting
Ext.P3 application, his request was not acceded to and the same was
rejected by Ext.P4 order. The reason for rejection is that by Ext.P5
order, the Special Officer has interedicted the revenue authorities from
effecting mutation or receiving tax from the Peermade Tea Company or
their transferees without the written permission from the Special Officer.
The petitioner contends that the order passed by the Special officer has
been set aside by this Court by Ext.P6 judgment in W.P.(C) No.40002 of
2016 and connected cases. While setting aside the order, it was held
that 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 relies on Exhibits P7 and P8
judgments rendered by this Court relying on the principles laid by this
Court in Exhibit P6 judgment. It is contended that after passing of the
judgment by this Court, Ext.P5(a) order has been passed by the
Government as per which, the District Collector has been authorised to
institute civil suit in respect of the properties alienated by Harrisons
Malayalam Ltd. and other Companies. According to the petitioner, no
suit has been instituted till date on the basis of Ext.P5(a). It is in the
above backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking
to quash Exhibit P4 order and for a further direction to the 5th
respondent to effect mutation of the property and to accept land tax
and also to issue revenue certificates such as Possession Certificate,
Location Sketch, Record of Rights etc. in respect of the property
covered under Ext.P1.
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. His grievance is that on the
cover of Ext.P5 and P5(a) orders, he is not being permitted to effect
mutation and also to secure revenue certificates. I find that Ext.P5
proceeding has already been set aside by this Court by Ext.P6 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. It is seen from Ext.P5(a) that the District Collector has
been entrusted with the task of instituting Civil Suits. However, the
respondents have no case that any such suit has been instituted. In
that view of the matter, the benefit of Ext.P6 judgment cannot be
denied to the petitioner. 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 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 Registrar1 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 effecting mutation and 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
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.68/2020 DATED
1/1/2020 OF PEERMADE SRO.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE OF
THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P1.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL
ISSUED BY THE SRO, PEERMADE TO 5TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
10/2/2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. GLR(LR)
210/15/PER-TCO DATED 12/8/2016 OF THE
SPECIAL OFFICER AND COLLECTOR.
EXHIBIT P5 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE GO NO.172/2019 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 6/6/2019.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7/11/2018
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.
40002/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/2/2019
PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WPC NO.
4647/2019.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT DATED
17/1/2020 IN WPC NOS.894/2020(J) AND
990/2020(W).
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
