Thomas T.M vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 12458 Ker

                     ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.
                   ---------------------------------
                    W.P.(C) No.8040 of 2020
             --------------------------------------------
              Dated this the 18th day of May, 2021

                             ORDER

The 1st petitioner owns 38.5 Cents of property comprised in

Sy.No.633 of Vagamon Village, covered by Ext.P1 sale deed dated

28.02.2019 and 2 Acres of land in Sy.No.338/1-60 of Upputhara

Village, covered by Ext.P2 sale deed dated 25.01.1996. The 2 nd

petitioner, who is the wife of the 1 st petitioner, owns 80.94 Ares of

property in Sy.No.338/1-60 of Upputhara Village, covered by Ext.P3

sale deed dated 25.01.1996. Exts.P4, P4(A) and P4(B) are the tax

receipts in respect of the aforesaid properties. According to the

petitioners, they purchased the properties for the purpose of

cultivation and also for the construction of residential building. The

grievance of the petitioners is that the 3 rd and 4th respondent

Village Officers are not taking any steps to effect mutation of the

aforesaid properties, on the ground that the properties are

plantation land exempted under Section 81 of the Kerala Land

Reforms Act, 1963.

2. The petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus :-2-:

W.P.(C).No.8040 of 2020

commanding the 2nd respondent Tahasildar, Peerumedu and the 3 rd

and 4th respondents Village Officers to consider the applications

made for effecting mutation of their properties covered by Exts.P1

to P3 sale deeds and also to issue necessary certificates including

location sketch and possession certificate, as in the case of Exts.P5

to P12 judgments of this Court. The petitioners have also sought for

a declaration that they are eligible and entitled to get their

properties mutated and also for grant of permission for the

construction of residential building, in the light of the directions

contained in Exts.P5 to P12 judgments of this Court.

3. The interim relief sought for in this writ petition is an

order directing respondents 2 to 4 to effect mutation of the

properties of the petitioners covered by Exts.P1 to P3 sale deeds,

based on the applications made for mutation, and issue possession

certificate and location sketch and accept land tax, in the light of

the directions contained in Exts.P5 to P12 judgments of this Court.

4. As per the recitals of Ext.P1 sale deed, the land in

question is plantation land exempted under Section 81 of the Kerala

Land Reforms Act, originally owned by Wagomon Tea Estate.

5. In Devassia R.V. and another v. Sub Registrar, :-3-:

W.P.(C).No.8040 of 2020

Idukki and others [2015 (1) KHC 805] (Ext.P5 judgment

produced along with this writ petition) a learned Judge of this Court

held that the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act do not

curtail fragmentation of the land, which is exempted from the

purview of ceiling. However, exempted category of land to have the

continuity of the qualification of exemption, the alienee or the

transferee shall use the land for any of the purposes for which

exemption is granted. The provisions of the said Act do not place

any embargo on transfer. The transfer of registry is for fiscal

purposes. The power of the competent authority to reopen the

ceiling proceedings to include the land exempted for the purpose of

ceiling is not lost on account of effecting mutation. Therefore, the

revenue officials cannot refuse to effect mutation of the property

purchased by the transferee.

6. Relying on the principle laid down in Devassia R.V., it

was held in Elias T.V. and others v. Sub Collector, Wayanad

and others [2019 (2) KHC 881] that conversion of land, which

was exempted under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act,

would only visit the consequence of initiation of proceedings for re-

determination of the ceiling alone and not beyond that. Therefore, :-4-:

W.P.(C).No.8040 of 2020

the petitioners therein shall be given revenue documents as

demanded, for utilising the land for any lawful purposes, without

prejudice to the right of the State to proceed against the land to re-

determine the ceiling on conversion.

7. The judgment of this Court in Elias T.V. is a common

judgment dated 12.04.2019 in W.P.(C)Nos.17847, 31729, 34714

and 36360 of 2018 and W.P.(C) Nos.6394 and 7553 of 2019. The

judgment in W.P.(C)No.17847 of 2018 is under challenge in

W.A.No.2299 of 2019 filed by the official respondents. On

21.11.2019, the Division Bench of this Court admitted the writ

appeal and granted an interim order staying the operation of the

impugned judgment in that writ petition, for a period of three

months. The judgment in W.P.(C)No.7553 of 2019 is under

challenge in W.A.No.1305 of 2020 filed by the official respondents.

On 13.10.2020, the Division Bench of this Court admitted that writ

appeal and granted interim stay for a period of three months and

ordered the appeal to be listed along with W.A.No.2299 of 2019.

8. It is pertinent to note that, in One Earth One Life and

others v. State of Kerala and others [2019 (1) KLT 985] a

Division Bench of this Court held that the legislative intention is :-5-:

W.P.(C).No.8040 of 2020

clear that the provision to exempt plantation from ceiling limit is to

promote agricultural growth as well as to help cultivation process in

a most economic manner for the welfare of the society as a whole.

With that view, a combined reading of sub-section (4) of Section 81

and Explanation I and II of Section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms

Act, put the things beyond any pale of doubt. Fragmentation of the

estate and transfer of it has to be treated as a case of conversion of

plantation into some other category of land. Such being the

scenario, fragmentation amounts to serious violation of the

provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Hence, the Division

Bench was not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel

for the 18th respondent that the fragmented plots will be maintained

as plantation by the transferees, so as to extent/avail the benefit of

HMT's case [State Human Rights Protection Centre, Thrissur and

another v. State of Kerala and others - 2009 (3) KHC 682].

9. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this

Court in One Earth One Life and also the interim orders granted

by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.2299 of 2019 and

1305 of 2020, the petitioners are not entitled for an order directing

respondents 2 to 4 to effect mutation of the properties covered by :-6-:

W.P.(C).No.8040 of 2020

Exts.P1 to P3 sale deeds and to issue possession certificates and

location sketch and also to accept land tax, as an interim measure.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

respondents may be directed to file counter affidavit within a

specified time limit, so that the writ petition can be finally heard at

the earliest.

11. The respondents shall file counter affidavit within three

weeks.

Post this writ petition for further consideration after three

weeks.

Sd/-

                                         ANIL K. NARENDRAN
jv                                              JUDGE