Arunraj vs Tahsildar (Lr)
2024 Latest Caselaw 8659 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 8659 Ker
Judgement Date : 27 March, 2024

Kerala High Court

Arunraj vs Tahsildar (Lr) on 27 March, 2024

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                     WP(C) NO. 10180 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:

    1       ARUNRAJ
            AGED 33 YEARS
            S/O. RAJU, ARUNALAYAM HOUSE, NALLILA P.O,
            PALLIMON, PULIYILA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691515

    2       PRIYANKA M. R
            AGED 32 YEARS
            W/O. ARUNRAJ, ARUNALAYAM HOUSE, NALLILA P.O,
            PALLIMON, PULIYILA CHERIYIL, KOLLAM, PIN - 691515

    3       BIJU M.K
            AGED 49 YEARS
            S/O. KARUNAKARAN, KARTHIKA HOUSE, KOTTARAKKARA,
            KADAKKAL P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691536

            BY ADVS.
            ROSHEN.D.ALEXANDER
            TINA ALEX THOMAS
            HARIMOHAN
            KAMAL ROY M.


RESPONDENTS:

    1       TAHSILDAR (LR)
            TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN -
            691001

    2       VILLAGE OFFICER
            PALLIMON VILLAGE OFFICE, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN -
            691576


OTHER PRESENT:

            SR.GP - ASWIN SETHUMADHAVAN


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION    ON   27.03.2024,     THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                      VIJU ABRAHAM,J
                -----------------------
               W.P.(C).No.10180 of 2024
           ---------------------------------
         Dated this the 27th day of March, 2024

                           JUDGMENT

Petitioners have approached this Court

challenging Exts.P4 and P5 and for a direction to

the respondents 1 and 2 to mutate the property

covered by Ext.P1 in favour of petitioners 1 and 2

and effect transfer of registry and receive land

tax.

2. Petitioners purchased certain extent of

property as per Ext.P1. During the year 2019, a

ceiling proceeding was initiated against the 3rd

petitioner herein, who is the prior owner of the

property as per the provisions of the Kerala Land

Reforms Act, 1963. The property covered by Ext.P1

was also included in Part A of the draft

statement. By Ext.P2 order they have decided to

issue an order in favour of the petitioner. It is

submitted that no challenge was laid against

Ext.P2 and the same has become final. Based on

Exts.P3 and P4, Ext.P2 order was directed to be

reconsidered and by Ext.P5 communication the 2nd

respondent expressed inability to close the

application for transfer of registry during the

pendency of Exts.P3 and P4. Petitioners submit

that since Ext.P2 has become final, there cannot

be any interdiction for effecting transfer of

registry in favour of the petitioner and to accept

land tax. Petitioners rely on the judgment in

Devassia v. Sub Registrar, 2015 (1) KLT 825 which

held that there is no provision in the Kerala Land

Reforms Act for restricting alienation of exempted

land in whole or part. This court in Vijayalakshmi

v. Tahsildar, 2019 (2) KLT 373 has held in

paragraphs 15 and 16 as follows:

"15. This Court is constrained to enter into discussion on the abovesaid issues only because the 1st respondent has cited those aspects as the main ground of rejection in the impugned Ext.P-15 order. Therefore, the said observations and findings made by this Court on those issues are only made from the limited perspective to decide on the matters relating to grant of Transfer of Registry and mutation.

16. As already noted hereinabove, the 1st respondent Tahsildar as the authority concerned with grant of mutation and Transfer of Registry, has no power to examine such vexed issues of title and therefore he has unnecessarily strayed himself into areas which are totally irrelevant and not germane for the purpose of the enquiry for exercising the powers conferred on him. It has been held by this Court in a catena of decisions as in Sainudheen v. State of Kerala (2013 (1) KHC

437, para 13) that the Tahsildar, as the mutation granting authority, cannot decide on the validity of the documents, and the title of the previous owner and that Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules has made the said position abundantly clear. Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules mandates that "the summary, enquiry and decision thereon is only an arrangement for fiscal purposes, and it does not affect the title of any person in respect of the lands covered with the decisions in Transfer of Registry cases and the question of legal right is always subject to adjudication by civil courts and pattas could be revised from time to time in accordance with such judicial decisions. It has been held by the Apex Court and various High Courts in various decisions as in Surney v. Inder Kaur (1996 (2) KLT OnLine 1114 (SC) = AIR 1996 SC 2823) that mutation of property in the revenue records does not create 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. Therefore in cases like the present one, where the registered land holder concerned has transferred the property, then the transferees/assignees will stand in the shoe of the land holder and by the cumulative impact of S.5(2) and S.3(3)(d), the competent revenue officials are under the bounden and statutory obligation to accept basic land tax from them. Otherwise it will amount to nothing but abdication to statutory obligations and duties of such competent revenue officials, which directly leads to loss of revenue."

3. The learned Government Pleader submits that

mutation has not been effected on the basis of

Exts.P3 and P4. Taking into consideration the

dictum laid down in Devassia's case and

Vijalakshmi's case cited supra, I am of the view

that the respondents are bound to effect mutation

and to receive tax consequent to the same.

Therefore, there will be a direction to

respondents 1 and 2 to mutate the property covered

by Ext.P1 in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2 and

to effect transfer of registry and accept tax. The

said proceedings shall be finalized within an