Kerala High Court
Reghu P.V vs State Of Kerala on 6 February, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 37261 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 REGHU P.V
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O P.R VISWANATHAN, PATTALI HOUSE,
KALADY P.O, KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683574
2 BENNY
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O K.V JOSEPH, KUDIYIRIKKAL HOUSE,
ANGAMALY P.O, ANGAMALY VILLAGE,
ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572
3 JOSE PAUL
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O PALOUSE K.M, PUDIYIRIKKAL HOUSE,
KARUKUTTY P.O, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE,
ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683576
4 ABHILASH SURENDHRAN
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O SURENDHRAN, CHAKKAMVELLI HOUSE,
ANGAMALY P.O, ANGAMALY VILLAGE,
ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572
BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, PAINAV P.O,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685603
3 TAHASILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, DEVIKULAM TALUK,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685613
WP(C)NO.37261/2023 2
4 DEPUTY TAHASILDAR (REVENUE RECOVERY)
TALUK OFFICE, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI, PIN - 685613
5 VILLAGE OFFICER
ANAVIRATTY VILLAGE OFFICE, ANAVIRATTY,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685561
6 VILLAGE OFFICER
MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE OFFICE,
DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKY, PIN - 685613
7 SHOBHANA SURENDHARAN
AGED 61 YEARS
W/O A.B SURENDHRAN, IDAPARAMBATH HOUSE,
SURYA NAGAR, POLINJAPALAM, ADIMALI P.O,
IDUKKI, PIN - 685561
BY ADV.DEEPA V., GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C)NO.37261/2023 3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 06th day of February, 2024
Petitioners have approached this Court aggrieved by
Exts.P9 to P12 communications and seeks for a direction to
respondents 2 to 5 to effect mutation of the property in
Re.Sy.No.262/3-3-1-3 (Old Sy.No.605/2/1 & 605/3/2) of
Anaviratty Village, Devikulam Taluk covered by Exts.P1 to
P4 sale deeds in favour of the petitioners as expeditiously as
possible within a time limit fixed by this Court.
2. Petitioners submit that they have purchased the
property from the seventh respondent as per Exts.P1 to P4
deeds. Petitioners also submit that though Exts.P5 to P8
encumbrance certificates were obtained, there was no
endorsement of liability on the property. But, when the
petitioners approached the third respondent to effect
mutation of the property, the same was declined as per
Exts.P9 to P12 communications stating that there exists
revenue recovery proceedings against the seventh
respondent.
3. Learned Government Pleader, upon instructions,
submitted that the reason stated for not effecting mutation
of the property is that revenue recovery proceedings are
initiated against the seventh respondent.
4. As per the averment in the Writ Petition the only
reason for not affecting mutation and to receive tax is the
existence of revenue recovery proceedings against the
seventh respondent who is the thandaper holder of the said
property. This Court in Laila v. Village Officer,
Thrikkovilvattom Village Office and others [2019 (4)
KHC 799] has held that the refusal to mutate property and
to accept basic land tax on the mere ground that revenue
recovery proceedings are pending is not proper and
revenue officials are obliged to accept basic tax from the
land holder. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as
follows :
6. It has been held in a catena of
decisions by various High Courts
including this Court as in Tulasibhai
v. State of Kerala, reported in 2010
(4) KLT 215 : 2010 (4) KHC 142
Nevin Raju v. S.Basheer and others
reported in 2015 (3) KLJ 197 : 2015
KHC 3676 : 2015 (3) KLT SN 6, that
mere pendency of revenue
recovery proceedings or attachment
proceedings, etc. will not be sufficient
justification on the part of the Village
Officer, Tahsildar, etc. for refusing to
accept basic land tax from land
holders concerned. It has also been
held that there are no provisions in
the Transfer of Registry Rules
interdicting acceptance of basic land
tax on account of such contingency
and that the competent revenue
officials are obliged to accept land tax
from the land holders concerned, as
otherwise it would amount to loss of
revenue to the public exchequer and
would also amount to dereliction and
abdication of the statutory duties of
the competent revenue officials
concerned. It has also been held by
various High Courts and the Apex
Court in decisions as in Surney v.
Inder Kaur reported in AIR 1996 SC
2823 that mutation of the property in
the revenue records does not create
any or extinguish title, nor has it any
presumptive value on title and it only
enables the person in whose favour
mutation is ordered, to pay the land
revenue in question. Moreover, the
petitioner has purchased the property
on the basis of Ext.P1 registered sale
deed. It is not in serious dispute that
the subject property in question was
duly registered in the name of the
petitioner's predecessor, who
conveyed the property in question to
the petitioner as per Ext.P1 and
therefore, he/she is the registered
land holder of the property in
question. Section 3(3) of the Kerala
Land Tax Act, 1961, which defines,
"Land holder" as follows :
"3(3) : "Land holder" means, -
(a) in relation to any land held by a
cultivating tenant as defined in the
Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of
1964), such cultivating tenant ;
(b) in relation to any land in the
possession of a kanam tenant as
defined in the Kanam Tenancy Act,
1955 (XXIX of 1955), such kanam
tenant ;
(c) in relation to any land which has
not been surveyed and is not held by
a cultivating tenant referred to in
sub-clause (a), the proprietor of such
land ;
(d) in relation to any other land, the
registered holder for the time being
of such land, and includes his legal
representatives and assigns any
person who under any law for the
time being in force is liable for the
payment of public revenue due in
respect of the land held by him."
7. Going by the averments in this
case, the contingencies envisaged in
clause (a), (b) and (c) of Section 3(3)
of the above Act may not arise, but
since the petitioner has purchased
the property from the predecessor of
the registered holder as per Ext.P1,
certainly she is the assignee of the
registered land holder as understood
in clause (D) of S.3(3) and so she
would fulfill the definition of "land
holder" as understood in Section 3(3)
more particularly clause (d) thereof.
Section 5(2) of the Kerala Land Tax
mandates that the competent
revenue officials like the Tahsildar,
Village Officer etc. are obliged to
collect land tax from land holder
concerned as understood in Section
3(3). Therefore, competent revenue
officials like respondents 1 and 2 are
obliged to accept basic land tax from
the land holder concerned, as
otherwise it would be violation of the
mandate in Section 5(2) and Section
3(3) of the Land Tax Act.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the
first respondent Village Officer will
immediately take up the request
made by the petitioner in the
abovesaid application for grant of
mutation and acceptance of basic
land tax as made out in Ext.P2 etc.
and after affording reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner will grant the said request
for mutation and will also issue basic
land tax receipt in that regard
forthwith. However, it is made clear
that that any such action will not in
any manner prejudice the finalisation
of the revenue recovery proceedings
as against the subject property, if it
is otherwise is justified and
warranted on facts and law and
provided due procedure thereof is
rigorously complied with."
In view of the categoric declaration of law as stated
in Laila's case cited supra, I am of the view that the stand
taken in Exts.P9 to P12 cannot be accepted. In view of the
same, the above Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside
Exts.P9 to P12 with a consequential direction to respondents
2 to 5 to effect mutation of the property covered by Exts.P1
to P4 deeds in favour of the petitioners. It is made clear
that the mutation of the property as directed above or
receipt of tax in respect of the said property will not in any
manner prejudice the revenue recovery proceedings as
against the subject property.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
csl
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37261/2023
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NOS
1358/2022 OF DEVIKULAM SRO DATE
19.05.2022 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NOS
1359/2022 OF DEVIKULAM SRO DATE
19.05.2022 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NOS
1360/2022 OF DEVIKULAM SRO DATE
19.05.2022 OF THE 3RD PETITIONER
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NOS
1361/2022 OF DEVIKULAM SRO DATE
19.05.2022 OF THE 4TH PETITIONER
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
ISSUED FROM THE DEVIKULAM SRO DATED
20.09.2023 TO PROPERTY OF 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
ISSUED FROM THE DEVIKULAM SRO DATED
20.09.2023 WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY
OF 2ND PETITIONER
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
ISSUED FROM THE DEVIKULAM SRO DATED
20.09.2023 WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY
OF 3RD PETITIONER
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE
ISSUED FROM THE DEVIKULAM SRO DATED
20.09.2023 WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY
OF 4TH PETITIONER
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY
THE INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF
THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER
DATED 19.10.2023.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY
THE INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF
THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO 2ND PETITIONER
DATED 19.10.2023.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY
THE INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF
THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO 3RD PETITIONER
DATED 19.10.2023.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY
THE INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF
THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO 4TH PETITIONER
DATED 19.10.2023.
