S.Pankajakshan Nair vs The State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 5574 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                      WP(C) NO. 26157 OF 2020
PETITIONER:

          S.PANKAJAKSHAN NAIR
          GOVINDAVILASAM, NOORUAPARA HOUSE, PARAVOOTHARA,
          NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM.
          BY ADVS.
          M.P.SREEKRISHNAN
          SRI.A.MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
          DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
    2     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM 685 011.
    3     THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR),
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT COLLECTORATE,ERNAKULAM 685 011.
    4     THE TAHSILDAR LR,
          PARAVUR, TALUK OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, NORTH PARAVUR,
          KERALA 683 513.
    5     THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
          KARUMBALOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA.
          BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER


OTHER PRESENT:

          SMT.K AMMINIKUTTY -SR GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 26157 OF 2020            2

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that the properties involved in this case are

owned by him and his wife and that neither of them are holding any

land in excess of the ceiling limit, as prescribed under the Kerala

Land Reforms Act ('KLR Act' for short). He says that this is evident

and manifest from Ext.P2 report of the Village Officer, which has

detailed that the properties owned by them in seriatim and therefore,

that he was entitled to seek its transfer of Registry in their respective

names and to be consequentially allowed to pay land tax thereon. He

alleges that these requests made by him and his wife have been

rejected without assigning any reason; and therefore, prays that the

4th respondent - Tahsildar and the 5th respondent - Village Officer be

directed to accede to the same without any further delay.

2. The afore submissions of Shri.M.P.Sreekrishnan - learned

counsel for the petitioner, were answered by the learned Senior

Government Pleader - Smt.K.Amminikutty, relying upon an order

issued by the District Collector, Ernakulam dated 24.01.2021, which

is under Section 120A of the KLR Act . She submitted that this order

was issued because the proceedings before the Land Tribunal against

the petitioner and his wife are still pending and there is a suspicion

that they are attempting to sell their properties to defeat the

provisions of the KLR Act. She, therefore, prayed that this writ

petition be dismissed.

3. In reply Shri.M.P.Sreekrishnan - learned counsel for the

petitioner, refuted the afore submissions saying that neither his client

nor his wife have never been communicated with any order by the

District Collector under Section 120A of the KLR Act. He then

contended that, in any event of the matter, even if such an order has

been issued, it would not stand in the way of his client and his wife

being allowed to remit land tax on the properties or to have its

registry transferred in their names, because it is only a fiscal measure

and particularly because they will abide by any orders to be issued

by the Land Tribunal. He concluded his submissions asserting that

his client and his wife do not intent to transfer any of the properties

involved in this case, without obtaining necessary orders from the

competent Tribunal.

4. When I hear Shri.M.P.Sreekrishnan as afore, I must say that

I find substantial force in his submissions because, the remittance of

land tax or the transfer of Registry, as rightly stated by him, is only a

fiscal measure. This is not a attribute of ownership per se and

therefore, if the Land Tribunal is to find against the petitioner or his

wife in any manner, they will be obligated to abide by the same,

subject to their available remedies, notwithstanding remittance of tax

or transfer of Registry.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition, recording the

submissions of Shri.M.P.Sreekrishnan that his client and his wife

will not sell any of the properties which are now within the ambit of

the suo motu proceedings before the Land Tribunal, without

obtaining necessary orders from the said Authority; with a

consequential direction to the 4th respondent - Tahsildar and the 5th

respondent - Village Officer to accede to his and his wife's request

of transfer of Registry of properties in their favour and for

remittance of land tax on it, which shall be done as expeditiously as

is possible, but not later than one month from the date on which an

application for the above are made in terms of the afore liberty.

After I dictated this part of the judgment,

Shri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, pointed

out that his client has also prayed that S.M.No.1/2016 pending

before the Land Tribunal against his client be directed to be disposed

of within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

Since the petitioner is stated to be more than a century in age, I

direct the Land Tribunal to dispose of the suo motu proceedings

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment, following due procedure.

I also clarify that if the land tax from the petitioner and his wife

have already been accepted in terms of the earlier interim orders of

this court, same shall now be treated to be final and not provisional.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/26.5

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26157/2020

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.12.2019.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUMALLOOR SUBMITTED TO THE TAHSILDAR, DATED 04.02.2020.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.07.2020 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION, DATED 23.09.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FIELD BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TALUK LAND BOARD, DATED 06.06.2019 WITHOUT ANNEXURES.

EXHIBIT P6          A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
                    12.02.2016 IN WPC 33256 OF 2014.