Kerala High Court

Dijo Rajan vs Tahsildar, Talappilly Taluk ... on 6 October, 2021

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                        PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

         WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 14TH ASWINA, 1943

                                 WP(C) NO. 7589 OF 2018

PETITIONER:

               DIJO RAJAN
               AGED 34 YEARS
               SON OF CHUNKATH RAJAN, CHUNKATH HOUSE,
               VADAKKE ANGADI,KUNNAMKULAM - 680 503.
               BY ADVS.
               SRI.S.VINOD BHAT
               KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN
               SRI.LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL


RESPONDENTS:

     1         TAHSILDAR, TALAPPILLY TALUK OFFICE
               WADAKKACHERRY - 680 582.
     2         VILLAGE OFFICER
               CHOVANNOOR VILLAGE OFFICE,CHOVANNOOR - 680 503.
     3         JOSEPH JOB
               S/O.VADAKKETHALAKKAL IYYAVU,KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE,
               KUNNAMKULAM P.O.,PIN - 680 503.
     4         SLEEBA THOMAS JOB
               S/O.VADAKKETHALAKKAL IYYAVU,
               KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE,KUNNAMKULAM P.O., PIN - 680 503.
               BY ADVS.
               SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHIS GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
               SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
               SRI.SHIHABUDEEN
               SMT.M.BINDUDAS
               SRI.K.C.HARISH
               SRI.SIJU RAJAN


      THIS     WRIT   PETITION     (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON

06.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C)No.7589 of 2018

                                   2




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 06th day of October, 2021

The petitioner claims to be in possession of certain

items of property covered by a registered, Partition Deed,

bearing No.1357/2007, of SRO Kunnamkulam, namely

Ext.P1. He points that one of the various items of immovable

property scheduled in the said document is the subject

matter in this writ petition and that it is shown as item no. 2

of D schedule thereof.

2. The petitioner asserts that he has been in full

ownership and possession of the property from 17/05/2007

and that Transfer of its Registry was effected in his name,

which enabled him to have remitted land tax on the same, as

is evident from Exts.P2 and P3. He says that, however,

respondents 3 and 4 illegally staked a claim over the

property in question and filed O.S.No.611/2011 on the files of W.P(C)No.7589 of 2018

the Munsiff's Court, Wadakancherry, the copy of the plaint

in which has been produced as Ext.P5. He further says that

respondents 3 and 4 filed I.A 2678/2011 in the said suit,

seeking an order of injunction against him from entering the

property in question, but that, same was dismissed through

Ext.P6 order, finding clearly that he and his father were in

possession of the same. He then points out that, as is

evident from Ext.P7, the suit was thereafter abandoned by

respondents 3 and 4 and was dismissed through the said

order, recording that the counsel has reported that he has no

instructions to continue to prosecute the same.

3. The petitioner then submitted that respondents 3

and 4 thereafter approached the 1st respondent seeking that

the Survey Nos. in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) with respect

to the property be corrected and that said Authority issued

Ext.P9 order, without even hearing him. The petitioner

contends that Ext.P9 is illegal and travels beyond the

declarations in Ext.P6 order; and therefore, that same is W.P(C)No.7589 of 2018

liable to be set aside by this Court.

4. I have heard Sri.Vinod Bhat - learned counsel for

the petitioner; Sri.R.T Pradeep - learned counsel appearing

for respondents 3 and 4 and Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George -

learned Government Pleader.

5. Sri. R.T.Pradeep - learned counsel for

respondents 3 and 4, pointed out that Ext.P9 cannot be

challenged by the petitioner, because it is only a

consequential order issued pursuant to Ext.R3(f) proceedings

issued by the District Collector, wherein, directions were

issued to correct the Basic Tax Register, by substituting

Survey No. 564/1 with the correct Survey number namely,

569/1,2. He submitted that this order of the District

Collector has been confirmed by the Land Revenue

Commissioner, which is evident from the endorsements

contained in Ext. R3(i), and thus contended that this writ

petition is not maintainable.

W.P(C)No.7589 of 2018

6. As an alternative contention, Sri.R.T.Pradeep

submitted that, even if the action pursuant to Ext.P9 is taken

forward, it would cause no prejudice to the petitioner, since

only the record in the BTR is being corrected and that same

will not offer title to any person, including his clients, except

if they are able to establish it through law. He concluded his

submissions saying that, in fact, his client has already been

allowed to remit tax on the property pursuant to Ext.P9; and

therefore, reiteratingly prayed that this writ petition be not

considered any further.

7. The learned Government Pleader - Sri. Rajeev

Jyothish George, submitted that the disputes between the

parties are beyond the realm of the official respondents and

that they are only concerned about the correctness of the

entries in the Revenue Records. He pointed out that, as is

luculent from Ext.R3(f) proceedings of the District Collector,

he had issued the said order relying upon a report of the

Deputy Director of Survey, who had recommended the W.P(C)No.7589 of 2018

correction, finding that when the BTR had been settled,

there was a mistake in it while recording the original Survey

number of re-survey 71/7, which is, in fact, 569/1,2 and not

564/1, as has been marked therein. The learned Government

Pleader, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be

dismissed.

8. When I evaluate the afore submissions and go

through the documents on record, it is clear that the District

Collector, through Ext.R3(f); and the Tahsildar, through

Ext.P9, have only corrected the entries in the BTR, based on

the report of the Deputy Director of Survey. I cannot find

fault with the District Collector in having adopted the entries

in the report of the Deputy Director of Survey, because he

certainly is the Competent Authority; and for the additional

reason that petitioner has not chosen to challenge Ext.R3(f)

or even the orders subsequent to it issued by the Land

Revenue Commissioner, confirming it. The petitioner, as

rightly stated by Sri. R.T Pradeep, has only challenged W.P(C)No.7589 of 2018

Ext. P9, which is a consequential order.

That said, even if Ext.P9 is allowed to operate, it

will not cause any prejudice to the petitioner, since if he is in

possession, as has been recorded by the Competent Court in

Ext.P6, then respondents 3 and 4 cannot disposses them or

seek their eviction, except after following the process of law

through a Competent Civil Court. In such event, certainly,

the suit will become one for title and the entries in the BTR

would be of no consequence, especially if the parties are able

to establish the ownership through cogent and reliable

methods, as are sanctioned under the Civil Law, including

the Code of Civil Procedure.

In the afore circumstances, I do not think that

there will be any purpose worthwhile in entertaining this

writ petition or entering into the merits of Ext.P9 order and I

am certainly of the view that, notwithstanding, the same, the

adjudicated, particularly, on account of the findings in Ext.P6

order, which has not been challenged by respondents 3 and

4, admittedly, until this time.

Resultantly, I dispose of this writ petition,

permitting the competent respondents to act as per Ext.P9

order; however, making it clear that merely on account of

the changes of the entries in the BTR consequent thereto, or

even if respondents 3 and 4 had been allowed to remit tax on

the property resultant thereto, it will not give them any claim

for title, unless they are able to establish it through a Court

of Competent jurisdiction, for which purpose, all the rival

contentions are left open, including as to impact of the

observations in Ext.P6 order of the Munsiff's Court,

Wadakancherry.

Sd/-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE DEED NO.1357/2007 DATED 17/05/2007. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.6558227 DATED 12/05/2015 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, TALAPPALLY. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.2087769 DATED 01/07/2013 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, TALAPPALLY. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.B1-682/13-14 DATED 08/04/2014 ISSUED BY KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE PLAINT O.S.611/2011 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY.

EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/03/2014 IN I.A.2678/2011 IN O.S.611/2017 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY.

EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30/05/2014 IN O.S.611/2011 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY.

EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE FORM F ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B1-3754/12 DATED 14/02/2018 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT R1(a) THE COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE ISSUED BY THE LOK-AYUKTHA

Exhibit R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE WILL NO.53 DATED 18/04/2001. Exhibit R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE WILL NO..8/1964 DATED 10.02.1964.

Exhibit R3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.1118/1866. Exhibit R3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 16/05/2013 ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT.

Exhibit R3(e) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 9/9/2013 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY.

Exhibit R3(f) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DATED 20.07.2015. Exhibit R3(g) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 10.08.2016 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.

Exhibit R3(h) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 15.10.2016.

Exhibit R3(i) TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER DATED 1.4.2017.

Exhibit R3(j) TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE BASIC REGISTER W.P(C)No.7589 of 2018

DATED 10.04.2017.

Exhibit R3(k) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, THALAPPALLI DATED 14.02.2018.

Exhibit R3(l) TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 27/02/2018.