Kerala High Court
Suresh Kumar Palaniswami vs The Tahasildar on 31 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 58 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
SURESH KUMAR PALANISWAMI
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O LATE M. PALANISWAMI, R/AT HOUSE NO. 414,
ANTHONIYAR NALLATHANNI COLONY, MUNNAR POST, MUNNAR
VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISRICT, PIN - 686612
BY ADVS.
S.JIJI
M.M.BABY2022
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TAHASILDAR
DEVIKULAM TALUK OFFICE COMPLEX, DEVIKULAM POST &
TALUK, IDUKKI, PIN - 685613
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
MUNNAR VILLAGE OFFICE, MUNNAR P.O., DEVIKULAM TALUK,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685612
SRI. BIMAL K.NATH -G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.58/2023 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the
rejection of application for mutation in respect of the property covered by
Ext.P3 document. It is the case of the petitioner that an identical issue was
considered by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment, where this Court held as
follows:-
"7. In a case like the instant one, where the petitioner states that
he has purchased property from the registered "land holder", then
clauses (a), (b) & (c) of Sec.3(3) will not be attracted and the case
would be straight away pigeon hole, in terms of clause (d) of
Sec.3(3). From the case of the petitioner, it appears that the
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, that the property was
duly mutated in favour Thamizharasi, the predecessor-in-interest
of the petitioner pursuant to the purchase made by her, in respect
of the said property, as per Ext.P-2 registered sale deed and that
the basic land tax has also been accepted from her consistently
and that be so, the petitioner's vendor is the registered "land
holder", as per the basic tax register as understood in Sec.3(3).
Where the registered "land holder" alienates the property, then
the assignee concerned will stand in the shoe of the registered
"land holder". In a case where the registered "land holder" lived
and died leaving the said property, then the legal representatives
of the registered "land holder" would step into the shoe of the
"land holder", as understood in Sec.3(3). Then this is the simple
position flowing from Sec.3(3) (d), then it is the legal obligation of
the competent revenue officials like respondents 2 & 3 to accept
basic land tax from the "land holder" as understood in Sec.3(3),
more particularly clause (d) thereof. As otherwise, it would be in
violation of their obligations and duties cast on them by the
legislature, as per Sec.5(2), which is nothing but abdication of the
duties and dereliction from their duties, as it leads to loss of
revenue to the State. The only exception to this scenario would be
in a case where any competent court has directed the competent
revenue officials concerned not to interdicting them from
accepting basic land tax or any proceedings have been validly
initiated and concluded with due notice to the parties, whereby it
is conclusively established that the land otherwise belongs to the
Government, etc. Save in those exceptional circumstances, the
obligation of the competent revenue officials of the respondents 2
& 3 is clear like the day light. However, request for mutations are
being intermittently delayed and even ultimately denied on
grounds as stated in Ext.P-5. It is trite that mere grant of
mutation, transfer of registry and acceptance of basic land tax
will not confer or extinguish title on any persons and the
summary enquiry contemplated under Rule 16 of the Transfer of
Registry Rules is only a limited arrangement for fiscal purposes,
to ensure due collection of revenue to the public sector and any
such mutations so granted, could not amount to conferment of
any title and if any person concerned has any dispute regarding
the title of the person who has secured mutation, then the such
issues should be resolved in civil courts regarding dispute of title
and thereafter upon the conclusive judicial verdicts in such
disputation, the mutation will have to be revised, on the basis of
such verdicts of the civil court, as clearly envisaged and
mandatory in Rule 16. What can be gathered from Ext.P-5 is that
the 2nd respondentTahsildar has taken the stand in his letter
No.C2-10466/16 dated 22.12.2016 referred to therein that the
"land holder" has passed some award/order as against TATA-
FINLAY, etc. It is not even specifically stated therein that the
subject property covered by Ext.P-1 forms part of the said lands of
the said company, etc. Even if that was so, grant of mutation
cannot in any manner prejudice the initiation and finalisation of
any such proceedings provided, which is validly initiated and
concluded in the manner known to law, after due adherence to the
procedure, so as to ensure fairness to such affected persons.
8. Hence, it is only to be held that the impugned stand of the
respondents 2 & 3 is clearly illegal and ultra vires and
accordingly, the refusal to grant mutation and acceptance of
basic land tax in respect of the petitioner as per Ext.P-5 is
declared and ordered to be illegal and ultra vires and the same
will stand set aside. Further it is ordered that the 3rd respondent
will immediately take up the request made by the petitioner for
mutation, transfer of registry and acceptance of basic land tax
and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to
the petitioner, will grant the request of the petitioner, if it is
otherwise in order. Orders in this regard should be duly passed by
the 3 rd respondent, without much delay, preferably within a
period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified
copy of this judgment. It is hoped and expected that the 3rd
respondent will not unnecessarily again drive the petitioner to
run from pillar to post and to litigate the matter. The 3rd
respondent would pass orders in that as hereinabove strictly in
compliance with the findings and observations made by this Court
hereinabove."
2. The learned Senior Government Pleader states that the directions
issued in ExtP8 can be issued in this case also making it clear that the
mutation and payment of tax, if any, by the petitioner in respect of the
property covered by Ext.P3 is only for fiscal purposes and does not amount to
conferment of any title.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, this writ
petition will stand disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the
claim of the petitioner for mutation in accordance with law and having regard
to the findings of this Court in Ext.P8 judgment. It is made clear that if
mutation is effected and land tax is accepted from the petitioner, the same
will not amount to conferment of any title to the petitioner and the same will
be only for fiscal purposes.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P.
JUDGE
acd
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 58/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF M.
PALANISWAMI DATED 22-06-2022 ISSUED BY THE
REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS & DEATHS, COIMBATORE
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
Exhibit P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE FAMILY MEMBERSHIP
CERTIFICATE OF M. PALANISWAMI DATED 01-08-
2022 ISSUED BY THE MUNNAR VILLAGE OFFICER
Exhibit P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1007/2022
DATED 02-04-2022 OF S.R.O. DEVIKULAM EXECUTED
BY P.S. MANI.
Exhibit P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED 24-11-
2022 ISSUED BY THE OTHER HEIRS OF THE
PALANISWAMI IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER AND OTHERS DATED 03-11-2022 BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 17-11-2022
Exhibit P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 30-
07-2019 ISSUED FROM THE 2ND RESPONDENT OFFICE
TO THE PRIOR TITLE HOLDER P.S. MANI IN FAVOUR
OF THIS PROPERTY
Exhibit P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C.) NO.
1578/2019 DATED 18-01-2019 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT
