Kerala High Court
Devassia George 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.6120 OF 2021(L)
PETITIONER/S:
DEVASSIA GEORGE,
AGED 77 YEARS,
S/O. P.P. DEVASSIA, PARAPURATHU HOUSE,
UPPUTHARA VILLAGE, UPPUTHARA P.O.,
PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-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-685538.
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
UPPUTHARA VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685505.
BY 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.6120 OF 2021(L) 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner in title and
possession of property having an extent of 36.96 Ares in survey
No.338/3-1-1 of Upputhara Village. The said property was acquired on
the cover of Ext.P1 gift deed executed and registered on 31.5.1969. 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 Sri.
Devassia and Sri. Joseph and it was after changing several hands that
the same was purchased by the petitioner. Ext.P1(a) is the Encumbrance
Certificate in respect of Ext.P1 which is produced to show that the
property was originally transferred much prior to the coming into force of
the Land Reforms Act.
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 gift 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 relies on Exts.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 gift 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
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.
Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the concerned
1 [2015(1) KLT 825]
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
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO.558/1969
DATED 31/05/1969 OF PEERMADE SRO OF THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
DATED 04/03/2021.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
16/05/2020.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/01/2021
ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.
GLR(LR)210/15/PER-TCO DATED 12/08/2016 OF
THE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COLLECTOR.
EXHIBIT P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE GO NO.172/2019 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 06/06/2019.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07/11/2018
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC
NO.40002/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/02/2019
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC
NO.4647/2019.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 13/07/2020 IN
WPC NO.13736/2020(N).
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:
NIL
//TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE
