Kerala High Court
Sini vs State Of Kerala on 16 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 3301 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
SINI, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ,
S.S.COTTAGE, CHUNDA, CHERUKULAM P.O., ITTIVA VILLAGE,
ANCHAL, KOLLAM-691 306.
B.MOHANLAL
P.S.PREETHA
MANSOOR ALI
SHINE N.S
KARTHIK J SEKHAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO
GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, CUTCHERY P.O., KOLLAM-691 013.
3 THE ADDITIONAL TAHASILDAR (LR),
TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 506.
4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ITTIVA VILLAGE,
ITTIVA P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM-691 536.
SMT.K. AMMINIKUTTY SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.03.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).26234/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.3301 OF 2022 & CON.CASE
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 25TH PHALGUNA,
1943
WP(C) NO. 26234 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
M.NABEEZATH, W/O.LATE M.ABDUL AZEEZ,
S.S.COTTAGE,
ITTIVA VILLAGE, CHUNDA MURI, KADAKKAL, KOLLAM.
BY ADV SRI.B.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHUPURAM - 695 001.
2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE
BUILDING, MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
COLLECTORATE, CUTCHERY.P.O, KOLLAM-691013.
4 THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691506.
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ITTIVA VILLAGE,
KOTTUKKAL.P.O, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM,PIN-691306.
6 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR)
TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691506.
7 SRI.RIYAS, MELEKULANGARA VEEDU, ARKANNOOR.P.O,
AYUR, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN-691533.
WP(C) NO.3301 OF 2022 & CON.CASE
3
8 SRI.IBRAHIMKUNJU, KURANTHARA CHARUVILA
PUTHEN VEEDU, ARAKANNOOR.P.O, AYUR,
KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN-691533.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 16.03.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).3301/2022, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.3301 OF 2022 & CON.CASE
4
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.3301/2022, 26234/2017]
These two writ petitions are being disposed of jointly
through this judgment, since the factual factors involved are
inter-layered and the reliefs sought for are certainly
interdependent.
2. W.P.(C) No.26234/2017 has been filed by
Smt.M.Nabeezath, impugning Ext.P7 order issued by the
second respondent - Land Revenue Commissioner (for short,
'the Commissioner') confirming Exts.P1, P2 and P4, as per
which, a revenue recovery action against her husband - late
Sri.Abdul Azeez, had been initiated on the allegation that he
had quarried excess of what was permitted and beyond the
period which was granted.
3. Smt.Nabeezath vehemently asserts, relying on Ext.P5
information - that her husband obtained from the Public
Information Officer of the Taluk Office, that the allegation
against him is untenable and that the alleged excess
quarrying was done by someone else and not him. She says
that, therefore, she had no other option but to approach the
second respondent through a statutory revision against the
WP(C) NO.3301 OF 2022 & CON.CASE
aforementioned order, but that it has now been culminated in
Ext.P7, merely saying that the revenue recovery action is
without error. Smt.Nabeezath, therefore, prays that Ext.P7
be set aside.
4. While so, through W.P.(C) No.3301/2022, after the
death of Sri.Abdul Azeez and on the strength of Ext.P2 Will
stated to have been settled by him, his daughter - Smt.Sini
has approached this Court seeking transfer of Registry of the
property covered by the said instrument in her favour and
praying that she be allowed to remit land tax thereon.
According to her, even if there is any revenue recovery action
pending on the said property - which she disputes - it is not a
bar from acceding to her request and therefore, prays that it
be directed to be done without any further delay.
5. I have heard Sri.B.Mohan Lal, learned counsel for the
petitioner in both cases and Smt.Amminikutty, learned
Senior Government Pleader .
6. The afore requests of the learned counsel for the
petitioners were vehemently contested by Smt.Amminikutty
saying that W.P.(C) No.3301/2022 has been filed by Smt.Sini
suppressing the fact that W.P.(C) No.26234/2017 is pending
WP(C) NO.3301 OF 2022 & CON.CASE
before this Court. She submitted that as long as revenue
recovery proceedings are pending on the property and since
statutory notices under Section 34 of the Revenue Recovery
Act has already been issued, there is no question of Smt.Sini
obtaining any competence to deal with it.
7. As far as the merits of W.P.(C) No.26234/2017 is
concerned, Smt.K.Amminikutty argued that the contentions of
Smt.M.Nabeezath is without basis because, as is limpid from
Ext.P7 therein, the second respondent - Commissioner had
considered her contentions to find, based on the relevant
inputs and reports of the other competent Authorities, that
her husband had quarried much beyond the area granted to
him and beyond the period allowed. She, therefore, prayed
that Ext.P7 be not interdicted and consequently that W.P.(C)
No.26234/2017 be dismissed.
8. I have evaluated the afore submissions on the
touchstone of the various materials and documents available
on record.
9. As rightly stated by Sri.B.Mohan Lal,
Smt.M.Nabeezath has approached this Court through W.P.(C)
No.26234/2017 impugning Ext.P7, which is an order of the
WP(C) NO.3301 OF 2022 & CON.CASE
Commissioner on her statutory revision. Normally, the said
Authority ought to have considered each of the contentions
and ought to have formulated his opinion on the same and
recorded it in the resultant order. However, going by Ext.P7,
after inditing various contentions of Smt.M.Nabeezath, he
concludes, through a sentence, that going by the report of
the Village Officer as also the Tahsildar, the allegation against
her husband, that he had quarried beyond the time and extent
granted and allotted to him, is true. Pertinently, however, the
said Authority does not explain how he found so, especially
when the petitioner relies on Ext.P5 to show that her husband
cannot be seen to have conducted any quarrying prior to
30.05.2009.
10. In such perspective, I am certainly of the view that
Ext.P7 cannot find favour of this Court and that the matter
will certainly require to be reconsidered by the Commissioner
in terms of law, after hearing Smt.Nabeezath afresh and
adverting to Ext.P5 or such other document that she may
produce in substantiation of her plea.
11. As a corollary consequence, W.P.(C) No.3301/2022
will require to be favoured with relief, but only in a modulated
WP(C) NO.3301 OF 2022 & CON.CASE
fashion, because as long as a revenue recovery action is
pending, the petitioner therein - Smt.Sini, cannot be allowed
to freely deal with the property or commit any action on it to
the prejudice of the Revenue. This is also because the
learned Senior Government Pleader points out that, as per
Ext.P2 Will, which Smt.Sini is relying upon, it is only after the
death of her mother, can she be entitled to its full ownership.
Of course, Sri.Mohan Lal, her learned counsel, submitted that
Smt.Nabeezath is willing to execute an apposite consent in
favour of Smt.Sini, so that her prayer for transfer of Registry
can be completed without impediment.
In the afore circumstances and taking note of the
specific circumstances involved in these cases, I dispose of
these writ petitions in the following manner:
A (i) W.P.(C)No.26234/2017 is allowed and Ext.P7 is
set aside; with a consequential direction to the 2 nd
respondent to reconsider the statutory Revision filed by
Smt.Nabeesath in terms of my observations above and
adverting to Ext.P5 and such other documents that she
may produce before him during the time of hearing; thus
culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as
WP(C) NO.3301 OF 2022 & CON.CASE
expeditiously as is possible but not later than four
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
(ii) Needless to say, this exercise shall be completed
only after affording Smt.Nabeesath an appropriate
opportunity of being heard.
B (i) W.P.(C)No.3301/2022 is allowed; however, to
the limited extent of directing the 4th respondent -
Village Officer to consider the application of the
petitioner for transfer of Registry of the property de hors
Ext.P6 and issue appropriate orders thereon, adverting
to the petitioner's contention that the mere pendency of
a Revenue Recovery action is not a bar on her request
being acceded to.
(ii) I, however, make it clear that, even if the Village
Officer is to find in her favour, the transfer of Registry or
any other action on the property shall be allowed with a
clear endorsement on the records and also the tax
receipts and such other, that Revenue Recovery action,
which is the subject matter in W.P.(C)No.26234/2017, is
pending; which endorsement shall only be erased only if
WP(C) NO.3301 OF 2022 & CON.CASE
the statutory Revision, as ordered in the afore writ
petition, is found in favour of Smt.Nabeesath and not
otherwise.
(iii) This shall be done by the Village Officer, as
expeditiously as is possible but not later than one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
stu
WP(C) NO.3301 OF 2022 & CON.CASE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26234/2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY
NOTICES NO:D7-21928/13 DATED 27/10/2014
UNDER SECTION 7 AND 34 OF THE REVENUE
RECOVERY ACT.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO:B1-
40387/08,LC.40/2009 DATED 28/10/2010 ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ON
10/11/2014
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.
(C)NO.30841/2014 DATED 19/11/2014 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO:K.DIS.D-
3750/15 DATED 03/05/2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NO:B5-4827/15
DATED 09/03/2015 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
03/11/2016 IN W.P.(C)NO.35200/2016 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO:LR/(K3)-
33171/2016 DATED 29/06/2017 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
WP(C) NO.3301 OF 2022 & CON.CASE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3301/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT FOR THE
YEAR 2021-2022 REMITTED BY THE FATHER OF
THE PETITIONER SRI.ABDUL AZEEZ BEFORE THE
4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.09.2021.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WILL NO.71/III/15 DATED
31.03.2015 OF THE CHADAYAMANGALAM SUB
REGISTRY EXECUTED BY THE FATHER OF THE
PETITIONER SRI.ABDUL AZEEZ.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF
PETITIONER'S FATHER SRI.ABDUL AZEEZ DATED
30.06.2017 OBTAINED FROM THE REGISTRAR OF
BIRTH AND DEATH NEDUMPANA GRAMA
PANCHAYATH.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
TO EFFECT MUTATION AND TO ACCEPT LAND TAX.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
NO.35200/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.1/22 SUBMITTED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
