Kerala High Court
Beena Mathew 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.237 OF 2021(D)
PETITIONER:
BEENA MATHEW,
AGED 45 YEARS,
W/O.MATHEW SEBASTIAN, KUNNUMPURATHU HOUSE,
AYYAPPANKOVIL P.O., MARYKULAM KARA,
AYYAPPANKOVIL VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA 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-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.
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.237 OF 2021(D) 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that she is the absolute owner in title and
possession of property having an extent of 5.26 Ares in Survey
No.338/113 of Peermade SRO. She had acquired the property on the
cover of Ext.P1 sale deed executed and registered on 15.3.2012. She
has effected mutation in her 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.
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, her request
was turned down by the 5th respondent by Ext.P3 order on the ground
that the issuance of revenue certificates has 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 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. She has produced records
showing that transfer of registry has been effected in her favour and
she has been paying tax. However, in the tax receipt, an endorsement
has been made to the effect that the tax is being received
provisionally. Her grievance is that when she sought for issuance of
Possession Certificate, ROR Certificate and other revenue records and
also for removing the endorsement in the tax receipt, she 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.
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
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.989/I/2012
DATED 15/3/2012 OF PEERMADE SRO.
EXHIBIT P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE WILL NO.38/3 OF THE
KOTTAYAM PRIINCIPAL SUB REGISTRAR.
EXHIBIT P1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.86/1/06
DATED 9/1/2006.
EXHIBIT P1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.723/2019.
EXHIBIT P1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATES
WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY OF THE
PETITIONER COVERED BY EXT.P1.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
14/12/2020.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/12/2020
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
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
W.P.(C)NO.13736/2020(N).
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
