Kerala High Court
C.T.Joseph 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.6135 OF 2021(N)
PETITIONERS:
1 C.T.JOSEPH
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.THOMAS, CHEMBANIKKAL HOUSE, UPPUTHARA VILLAGE,
PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
2 JESSY JOSEPH,
AGED 60 YEARS,
W/O.C.T.JOSEPH, CHEMBANIKKAL HOUSE,
UPPUTHARA VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK,
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 - 695 001.
2 THE STATE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COLLECTOR
GOVERNMENT LAND RESUMPTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
IDUKKI DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, 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.6135 OF 2021(N) 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioners herein are senior citizens. They state that the 1st
petitioner is in title and possession of property having an extent of
40.47 Ares in Survey No.338 of Peermade SRO, Upputhara Village
which he had obtained as per Ext.P1 sale deed executed and
registered on 26.8.1998. The 2nd petitioner is the wife of the 1st
petitioner and she is in title and possession of property having an
extent of 38.45 Ares in Survey No.338 of Peermade SRO, Upputhara
Village which she had obtained as per Ext.P1(a) sale deed executed
and registered on 27.8.1998. They contend that the property covered
under Exts.P1 and P1(a) originally belonged to one Sri. Devassia and
Sri. Joseph and it was after changing several hands that the property
was purchased by the petitioners herein. Exts.P1(b) and P1(c)
encumbrance certificates are relied on to substantiate the said fact.
According to the petitioners, they have been remitting tax in respect of
the above property and reliance is placed on Exts.P2 and P2(a).
However, in the tax receipts, an endorsement is made that the tax is
being accepted provisionally. 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.
2. The petitioners contend that they have 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 and P1(a)
deeds. However, their request was turned down by the 5th respondent
by Ext.P3 and P3(a) orders 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 petitioners 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 petitioners have
approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P3 and P3(a) orders 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 P1(a)
and to remove the endorsement in Ext.P2 and P2(a) tax receipts.
3. I have heard Sri.Biju C. Abraham, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader.
4. I have considered the submissions made across the Bar.
5. Ext.P1 and P1(a) sale deeds would reveal that the petitioners
have acquired title over the properties covered under the deed. They
have produced records showing that transfer of registry has been
effected in their favour and they have been paying tax. However, in the
tax receipts, an endorsement has been made to the effect that the tax
is being received provisionally. Their grievance is that when they
sought for issuance of Possession Certificate, ROR Certificate and other
revenue records and also for removing the endorsement in the tax
receipt, they were informed that the revenue records cannot be issued
to them 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 petitioners on that count.
6. The respondents have raised a contention that the property
owned by the petitioners are parts 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 petitioners 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.
1[2015(1) KLT 825]
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 petitioners 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
petitioners.
Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the
concerned respondent to forthwith take up the request made by the
petitioners for issuance of revenue certificates like Possession
Certificate, location sketch, ROR certificate, etc. in respect of the
properties covered under Ext.P1 and P1(a) and shall issue the same to
the petitioners. It is also made clear that the tax receipt, if any, issued
to the petitioners, 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.2308/1998
DATED 26/8/1998 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P1(a) TRUE OF THE SALE DEED NO.2316/1998 DATED
27/9/1998 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
DATED 25/2/2021 WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY
COVERED BY EXT.P1.
EXHIBIT P1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
DATED 25/2/2021 WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY
COVERED BY EXT.P1(a).
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
18/6/2020 WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY
COVERED BY EXT.P1.
EXHIBIT P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
18/6/2020 WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY
COVERED BY EXT.P1(a)
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4/2/2021
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4/2/2021
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.GLR(LR)
210/15/PER-TCO DATED 12/8/2016 OF THE
SPECIAL OFFICER & 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 WP(C)
NO.40002/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/2/2019
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)
NO.4647/2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 13/7/2020 IN
WP(C) NOS.13736/2020(N).
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
