Abu vs The Village Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 20654 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
         TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 19132 OF 2021


PETITIONER:

              ABU, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, KIZHAKKAN HOUSE,
              KERALA ESTATE P.O., PANTHRA, NILAMBUR TALUK,
              KARUVARAKKUND, MALAPPURAM-676525.

              BY ADVS.
              SHAHIM BIN AZIZ
              MOHAMMED SHAFI.K
              C.T.BASHEER
              M.I.ANWAR SADATH
              T.RIYAS
              BIBIN BABU
              EHLAS HALEEMA C.K.


RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KERALA ESTATE,
              NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676525.

     2        THE TAHSILDAR, NILAMBUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE,
              NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679329.

              SMT. SURYA BINOY- SR. G.P


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 19132/21
                                             2

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims to be the owner of

certain extents or property in Sy No.883 in

Resurvery No.79, Block No.156 of Kerala Estate

Village, Nilambur. He says that he has derived

title through a valid document but that when he

approached the 2nd respondent - Tahsildar for

Transfer of Registry of the property in his name

and for the consequent remittance of land tax

through the 1st respondent - Village Officer, he

has been denied such benefits by both of them,

without assigning any reason; thus constraining

him to approach this Court seeking directions to

the said respondents to allow him to remit land

tax in terms of law.

2. The learned Government Pleader - Smt.Surya

Binoy, submitted that the respondents have not yet

rejected the petitioner's applications but are

considering the same in terms of law. She

submitted that even going by the pleadings on WPC 19132/21

record, the petitioner has been referring to a

sale deed, as well as a gift deed, to claim his

title over the property in question; and

therefore, that this matter will require to be

enquired into properly.

3. Even when I hear the learned Senior

Government Pleader as afore, the fact remains that

if the petitioner is able to establish his title

over the property, the 2nd respondent cannot deny

Transfer of Registry in his name nor can the 1 st

respondent refuse him to remit land tax on it.

This is because, the question whether the land

belongs to a larger extent which was earlier a

plantation enjoining exemption under Section 81 of

the Kerala Land Reforms Act; and whether there is

a fragmentation of the said estate, are not ones

that can be used by the respondent to reject the

applications of the petitioner. This has been

spoken to by this Court in various judgments,

including in Ext.P3.

4. The only question which can be considered WPC 19132/21

by the 2nd respondent, while the petitioner's

application for Transfer of Registry, is

considered is whether he has title over the

property, which certainly will have to be

adjudicated in terms of the Transfer of Registry

Rules.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ

Petition and direct the 2nd respondent - Tahsildar

to consider the petitioner's application for

Transfer of Registry of the property in question

and if he is able to establish title over the

same, then to issue appropriate orders in his

favour within a period of one month from the date

of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, on the 2nd respondent passing

orders as afore, the petitioner will be at liberty

to approach the 1st respondent seeking permission

to remit land tax, which shall be allowed without

any avoidable delay thereafter.

It goes without saying that the competent

Authority will be at full liberty to take any WPC 19132/21

action against the property in question if it is

found that there is any illegal action with

respect to it, including for conversion of the

same contrary to the mandate of the Kerala Land

Reforms Act.

Sd/-

RR                                      DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                             JUDGE
 WPC 19132/21


               APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19132/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1            TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED

NO.1779/2016 OF KARUVARAKKUND S.R.O.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT OF KERALA ESTATE VILLAGE DATED 05/10/2016.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 28/06/2021 IN WPC NO.7262/2021 ETC.