Kerala High Court
M/S.Missionary Society Of St. ... vs State Of Kerala on 14 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 10672 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
M/S.MISSIONARY SOCIETY OF ST. FRANCIS XAVIER NO. K.184
POONJAR VILLAGE AND DESOM, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT, ADMIN OFFICE, VILLALAYOLA TEMPLE ROAD,
KADAVANTHARA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY
SUPERIOR GENERAL ANNAMMA AUGUSTINE, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.
T.V. VARGHESE, RESIDING AT SHIJU BHAVAN, JUNIOR JANATHA
ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI 682 019.
BY ADVS.
T.V.VARGHESE
SRI.VARGHESE K.PAUL
SRI.PETER KURIAN
KUM.TERESA AMMU
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR 680 003.
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
TRISSUR RDO OFFICE, CIVIL LINE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR
680 003.
4 TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR TALUK,
W. PALACE ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVU P.O. THRISSUR 680 020.
5 ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR,
THRISSUR TALUK, W. PALACE ROAD, CHEMBUKKAVU P.O.
THRISSUR 680 020.
6 VILLAGE OFFICER,
KILLANNUR, THANGALOOR P.O. THRISSUR 680 581.
WP(C) NO. 10672 OF 2021
2
7 SECRETARY,
KILLANNUR GRAMMA PANCHAYATH,MULANKUNNATU KAVU P.O.
THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 581.
SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO - R7
SRI. HANIL KUMAR (GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 10672 OF 2021
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is stated to be a Society registered under the
provisions of Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and
Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955. They say that they
had purchased an extent of 50 Acres 84 ¾ cents of land in
Killannur Village from another company as early as in the year
1987 and that the Transfer of its Registry has been effected in
their name, consequently entitling them to remit land tax on it, as
is evident from Exts.P1 and P1(a).
2. The petitioner say that, however, when they applied
to remit land tax on the property in the year 2014, it was refused
by the Village Officer, through Ext.P6 order, asking them to
produce necessary documents from the Rubber Board to show
that the property in question had enjoyed exemption, under
Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, from a date prior to
the coming into force of the said Act.
3. The petitioner says that they, therefore, obtained
Ext.P7 certificate from the Rubber Board on 19.01.2017 - which
WP(C) NO. 10672 OF 2021
clearly establish that the property was a Rubber Estate enjoying
the beneficial protection of Section 81 of the Kerala Land
Reforms Act from the year 1962 onwards.
4. The petitioner alleges that, however, since no further
action was taken on their application by the Village Officer, they
were constrained to prefer Ext.P8 representation before the
Revenue Divisional Officer and consequently, prays that either
the Village Officer be directed to issue appropriate orders on
their application for permission to remit land tax on the strength
of Ext.P7; or alternatively that the RDO be directed to take up
and consider Ext.P8 in terms of law.
5. The afore submissions of Sri.T.V.Varghese - learned
counsel for the petitioner, were answered by the learned Special
Government Pleader - Sri.Hanilkumar, saying that the Village
Officer has refused to permit the petitioner to remit the land tax
not merely for the reason that necessary documents from the
Rubber Board had not been produced, but also because certain
proceedings under the Kerala Land Reforms Act is still being
WP(C) NO. 10672 OF 2021
continued against the property in question. He submitted that,
therefore, until the "ceiling case" is concluded appropriately, the
petitioner's request cannot be acceded to.
6. Even though I hear the learned Government Pleader as
above, this Court cannot accept his submissions because it is now
well settled, through a catena of judgments of this Court and that
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that merely because ceiling
proceedings are pending, the competent Authority cannot inhibit
the remittance of land tax on the property since even if it is so
remitted, the owner will be obligated to abide by such
proceedings and to surrender lands if he/they are so liable, subject
to his/their legal remedies. As regards the other objection in
Ext.P6 is concerned, the petitioner has satisfied the same by
producing Ext.P7.
I am, therefore, of the firm opinion that the Village Officer
must now accede to the request of the petitioner for remittance of
land tax on their property from the year 2014, subject to the land
ceiling proceedings what is stated to be proceeding against it. For
WP(C) NO. 10672 OF 2021
the same reason, I do not think that any further orders are required
to be issued by the RDO on Ext.P8.
Resultantly, I allow this writ petition and direct the 6 th
respondent - Village Officer to allow the petitioner to remit the
land tax on the property in question from the year 2014, on the
strength of Ext.P7; however, permitting them to make necessary
endorsement on the tax receipt that land ceiling proceedings are
pending against it, if it is so pending, indicating its number and
the stage at which it is presently at.
The afore shall be complied with by the 6th respondent -
Village Officer within a period of two weeks from the date on
which the petitioner tenders the amounts required for paying tax
from the year 2014 onwards.
Needless to say, my directions afore will not, in any manner,
inhibit or trammel the rights of the competent Authority under the
Kerala Land Reforms Act to proceed against the property as per
law and I make it clear that the petitioner will be obligated, subject
to their statutory rights, to abide by the orders to be issued thereon
WP(C) NO. 10672 OF 2021
in future.
After I dictated this part of the judgment, the learned
Special Government Pleader brought to my notice that, in
Ext.P6, the Village Officer has also mentioned that the petitioner
appears to be in possession of certain lands which are classified
as "puramboke". He submitted that, therefore, the Village Officer
may be permitted to make an enquiry about this before the afore
orders are complied with.
I am afraid that I cannot accede to the afore request
because, if the petitioner is in possession of lands which are in
excess of their entitlement under their title document, then
necessary steps will have to be taken to evict them from such,
under the provisions of the applicable laws, including the Kerala
Land Conservancy Act; and consequently, the Village Officer
cannot unilaterally decide not to allow them to remit tax for
such reasons.
I, therefore, clarify that, apart from the afore liberties, the
official respondents will also have the competence to proceed
WP(C) NO. 10672 OF 2021
against any property which is held by the petitioner in excess of
their title documents and which is classified as a "purmboke,"
after following due procedure and after hearing them
appropriately, notwithstanding my directions above.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
SAS/14/09/2021
WP(C) NO. 10672 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10672/2021
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DT.
16.08.1989.
EXHIBIT P1 (A) A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DT.
07.01.1995.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DT.
18.09.1985.
EXHIBIT P2 (A) A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DT.
24.10.1986.
EXHIBIT P2 (B) A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DT.
10.11.1988.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT
DT.15.07.2019 OF 4TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 06.10.2016 OF
HONBLE HIGH COURT.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER, KILLNNUR DT. 16.12.2016.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER, KILLNNUR DT. 31.12.2016.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.
18GEN/2016-17/ROTR DT. 19/01/2017 ISSUED BY
THE RUBBER BOARD REGIONAL OFFICE, THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT. 09.03.2021
FILED BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE.
