Agul Bhaskar v. State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** ## **THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.21173 OF 2020(V)** ## **PETITIONER:** **AGUL BHASKAR AGED 30 YEARS** **S/O.V.V. BHASI, NOW RESIDING AT VAHUVALIL HOUSE, UPPUTHARA P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 505.** - **BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **2 THE STATE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COLLECTOR, GOVERNMENT LAND RESUMPTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, COLLECOTRATE, IDUKKI 685 603.** - **4 THE TAHSILDAR, PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 538.** - **5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, UPPUTHARA VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 505.** ## **SRI.Y.JAFAR KHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.21173 OF 2020(V) 2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner in title and possession of property having an extent of 4.05 Ares in survey No.338/17-6 of Upputhara Village. The said property was acquired by the petitioner on the cover of Exhibit P1 sale deed executed and registered on 1.1.2020. It is contended that the property covered under Exhibit P1 was originally owned by Sri. Devassia and Sri. Joseph and it was after changing several hands that the same was purchased by the petitioner. Exhibit P2 is the encumbrance certificate produced by the petitioner to substantiate the said fact. 2. According to the petitioner, when he approached the 5th respondent to effect transfer of registry and to pay tax by submitting Ext.P3 application, his request was not acceded to and the same was rejected by Ext.P4 order. The reason for rejection is that by Ext.P5 order, the Special Officer has interedicted the revenue authorities from effecting mutation or receiving tax from the Peermade Tea Company or their transferees without the written permission from the Special Officer. The petitioner contends that the order passed by the Special officer has ## **WP(C).No.21173 OF 2020(V) 3** been set aside by this Court by Ext.P6 judgment in W.P.(C) No.40002 of 2016 and connected cases. While setting aside the order, it was held that that the proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act, 1957, can be invoked only for the purpose of resumption or removal of encroachment from Government lands and not in respect of property owned by individuals and obtained by deeds which have been legally executed and registered in accordance with law. The revenue authorities were ordered to accept basic tax from the petitioners therein on the strength of the title deeds relied on by them subject to adjudication of title in proceedings, if any, initiated by the Government. The petitioner also relies on Exhibits P7 and P8 judgments rendered by this Court relying on the principles laid by this Court in Exhibit P6 judgment. It is contended that after passing of the judgment by this Court, Ext.P5(a) order has been passed by the Government as per which, the District Collector has been authorised to institute civil suit in respect of the properties alienated by Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. and other Companies. According to the petitioner, no suit has been instituted till date on the basis of Ext.P5(a). It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Exhibit P4 order and for a further direction to the 5th respondent to effect mutation of the property and to accept land tax and also to issue revenue certificates such as Possession Certificate, ## **WP(C).No.21173 OF 2020(V) 4** Location Sketch, Record of Rights etc. in respect of the property covered under Ext.P1. 3. I have heard Sri.Biju C. Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. I have considered the submissions made across the Bar. 5. Ext.P1 sale deed shows that the petitioner has acquired title over the property covered under the deed. His grievance is that on the cover of Ext.P5 and P5(a) orders, he is not being permitted to effect mutation and also to secure revenue certificates. I find that Ext.P5 proceeding has already been set aside by this Court by Ext.P6 judgment dated 07.11.2018 wherein this Court has held that the proceedings issued by the District Collector cannot be sustained. It was further held that the remedy of the respondent-State Government is to institute appropriate civil suits before the competent Civil Court in the matter of title and not by issuing the impugned proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act. It is seen from Ext.P5(a) that the District Collector has been entrusted with the task of instituting Civil Suits. However, the respondents have no case that any such suit has been instituted. In that view of the matter, the benefit of Ext.P6 judgment cannot be denied to the petitioner. There is no justification on the part of the ## **WP(C).No.21173 OF 2020(V) 5** respondents in refusing to issue the certificates sought for by the petitioner on that count. 6. The respondents have raised a contention that the property owned by the petitioner is part of larger extents of properties, which had earlier secured exemption under Sec.81(1) (e) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, on the ground that it is plantation land. It is contended that the fragmented plots of land are being used for non exempted purposes and therefore illegal. A Division Bench of this Court in the common judgment dated 04.04.2017 in W.A.Nos.564 & 612 of 2017 has held that the question as to whether the petitionerslandowners would be actually using the lands in question for nonexempted purposes and thus violating the exemption clause would arise only when they actually use of the land for quarrying purposes and not at the stage when they seek a Possession Certificate for any such prospective use and that those objections and contentions are not relevant and germane for refusal of issuance of such revenue certificates and that the respondent-State authorities are fully at liberty to raise all such contentions and such objections at the appropriate time, when a cause of action in that regard actually arises. In view of the said judgment, the respondents are obliged in law to consider the request of the petitioner without being burdened down by the ## **WP(C).No.21173 OF 2020(V) 6** provisions of the Land Reforms Act. Furthermore, this Court in **Devassia v. Sub Registrar[1]** has held that the provisions of the KLR Act do not place any embargo on transfer and the transfer of registry is for fiscal purposes on transfer and that said Act also do not curtail fragmentation of exempted lands from the purview of ceiling, but that exempted category of land, to have continuity of the qualification of exemption, the alienee or the transferee shall use the land for any of the purposes, for which exemption would be granted and if the land is used for a non-exempted purpose, either before or after the purchase, then certainly the respondent-State authorities may have the competence to take appropriate action as is warranted on law and facts, in that regard. In that view of the matter, the contention forcefully advanced by the learned Government Pleader cannot be sustained. 7. However, in view of the concern expressed by the State, it is made clear that it would be open to the competent among respondents to proceed against the petitioner under the Land Reforms Act, if a case is made out and in that event, the same shall be strictly as per procedure and in accordance with law with due notice to the petitioner. 1[2015(1) KLT 825] **WP(C).No.21173 OF 2020(V) 7** Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the concerned respondent to forthwith take up the request made by the petitioner for effecting mutation and for issuance of revenue certificates like Possession Certificate, location sketch, ROR certificate, etc. in respect of the properties covered under Ext.P1 and shall issue the same to the petitioner. It is also made clear that the tax receipt, if any, issued to the petitioner, shall not carry out any adverse endorsement. Before parting, it is made clear that the directions issued as aforesaid will be subject to the adjudication of the title in a Civil Suit, if any, instituted by the State. **Sd/-** ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **JUDGE** **NS** **WP(C).No.21173 OF 2020(V) 8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.68/2020 DATED 1/1/2020 OF PEERMADE SRO.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P1.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE SRO, PEERMADE TO 5TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10/2/2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. GLR(LR) 210/15/PER-TCO DATED 12/8/2016 OF THE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COLLECTOR.** - **EXHIBIT P5 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE GO NO.172/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 6/6/2019.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7/11/2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 40002/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/2/2019 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WPC NO. 4647/2019.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 17/1/2020 IN WPC NOS.894/2020(J) AND 990/2020(W).** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE**