High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2013-03-06Writ petition allowed; Ext. P15 set aside; dire...

Benny K.T. and Roy Francis v. District Collector, Thrissur District and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 21637/2012 - D

Neutral Citation::

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. M. Shaffique
Judgment Date: 2013-03-06
Court Decision / Holding: Ext.P15 set aside. 3rd respondent directed to consider the petitioners’ request for change of entry in the BTR register and to pass appropriate orders within two months from receipt of the judgment. Until such an order is passed, further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P5 and P6 shall be kept in abeyance.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; Ext. P15 set aside; directions to modify BTR entry within two months; Exts. P5 and P6 kept in abeyance until order on modification is passed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Benny K.T.
Roy Francis

Respondents

The District Collector, Thrissur District
Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur
Additional Tahsildar, Talappilly Taluk, Wadakkanchery, Thrissur District
Village Officer, Wadakkanchery Village, Thrissur

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri P. Radhakrishnan
• Sri Madhu Radhakrishnan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Noushad Thottathil

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, Benny K.T. and Roy Francis, challenge notices issued under Section 12 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 (Exts. P5 and P6) by revenue authorities in respect of land described as Pandaravaka Verumpattam in Wadakkanchery. They contend the land belongs to them and have placed before the Tahsildar various documents—sale deeds (Exs. P1–P2), tax receipts (Exs. P3–P4), and entries in the survey and settlement register (Exs. P12–P13)—to prove ownership, arguing that the land description in the records as Karam Pathinja Tharisu is erroneous. The Tahsildar had not passed orders, and Ext. P15 was issued by the 3rd respondent, stating that due to a pending civil appeal (A.S. No. 188/2009) a decision could not be made. The petitioners rely on the settlement/register entries indicating Pandaravaka Verumpattam, which they allege confers proprietary interest; they cite the Supreme Court’s Purushothaman Namboodiri v. State of Kerala to support this claim of proprietary right by royal proclamation, and they request correction of the BTR register to reflect their title. The respondents contend that the BTR register shows Karam Pathinja Tharisu, a Government land, and that the Land Conservancy action is appropriate. The court ultimately holds that pendency of other civil disputes regarding puramboke land does not bar consideration of the petitioners’ claim, sets aside Ext. P15, and directs the 3rd respondent to consider the change in the BTR entry and pass appropriate orders within two months, while keeping Exts. P5 and P6 in abeyance until then.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 12 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Pandaravaka Verumpattam confers proprietary interest (as per the survey/settlement register)
Royal proclamation can vest proprietary rights; doctrine confirmed by Supreme Court in Purushothaman Namboodiri v. State of Kerala, 1962 KLt 1 (S.C)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners assert ownership of the property based on Exts. P1–P4 and Exts. P12–P13, arguing that Pandaravaka Verumpattam constitutes proprietary land and that the BTR entry must reflect this title. They contend that the Tahsildar did not decide upon their documents and that Ext. P15 incorrectly denies relief due to pending civil litigation; they seek modification of the BTR register and suspension of further action under Exts. P5 and P6 until a final decision.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the BTR register describes the land as Karam Pathinja Tharisu, a Government land, thus justifying action under the Land Conservancy Act. They argue that tax payments made were for sketch purposes, not land tax, and that Pandaravaka Verumpattam does not confer title. They further rely on the pendency of civil appeal (A.S. No. 188/2009) as a basis to defer decision.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Purushothaman Namboodiri v. State of Kerala	(1962) KL T 1 (SC)	Positive	Cited to support that Pandaravaka Verumpattam land can confer proprietary interest by royal proclamation, a principle relied upon by the petitioners and recognized by the Supreme Court.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Benny K.T. and Roy Francis v. District Collector, Thrissur District and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/15TH PHALGUNA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 21637 of 2012 (D)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------------------** **1. BENNY K.T. AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, KUNALI HOUSE, KUMARANELLORE VILLAGE, WADAKKANCHERY.** ## **2. ROY FRANCIS,** **S/O. FRANCIS, AGED 45 YEARS, KURUTHOOKULANGARA HOUSE, ENKAKAD DESOM, ENLEAKAD VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 003.** **2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR - 680 003.** **3. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALAPPILLY TALUK, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 582.** ## **4. VILLAGE OFFICER,** - **WADAKKANCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR - 680 582.** **R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **WPC.NO.21637/2012 D** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 4335/2006 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, WADAKKANCHERY DATED 30/10/2006.** **EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO. 4336/2006 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, WADAKKANCHERY DATED 30/10/2006.** **EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 31/01/2007.** **EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 31/01/2007.** **EXHIBIT-P5-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE KERALA LAND CONSERVANCY ACT, 1957 DATED 07/06/2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT-P6-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE KERALA LAND CONSERVANCY ACT, 1957 DATED 07/06/2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.** **EXHIBIT-P7-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBITS-P5 AND P6 NOTICES DTD. NIL.** **EXHIBIT-P8-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/08/2007 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P9-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/10/2011 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P10-TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION/REPRESENTATION DATED 24/02/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P11-TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION/REPRESENTATION DATED 24/02/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P12-TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT REGISTER OF THE VILLAGE.** **EXHIBIT-P13-TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS.** **..2/-** **Kss** **..2....** ## **WPC.NO.21637/2012 D** **EXHIBIT-P14-TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT-P15-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/03/2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P16: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3/1120.** **EXHIBIT P17: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.1031/62 OF WADAKKANCHERY SUB-REGISTRY.** **EXHIBIT P18: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT.** **EXHIBIT P19: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Kss** A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. ---------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 21637 2012 - D --------------------------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] March, 2013 **J U D G M E N T** Petitioners challenge Exts.P5, P6 and P15. Exts.P5 and P6 relate to notice issued by the revenue authorities to the petitioner under Section 12 of the Land Conservancy Act, 1957. Ext.P5 is issued to the 1[st] petitioner in respect of 1.150 cents of land in Sy. No.754/1 of Wadakancherry Village. According to the revenue authorities, the said property is described as Karam pathinja tharise. Ext.P6 is a similar notice with reference to the same extent and Survey number of land issued to the 2[nd] petitioner. 2. According to the petitioners these properties absolutely belongs to the petitioners and all the necessary documents and prior title deeds to prove their ownership were submitted before the Tahsildar. W.P.(C) No. 21637/2012 - D **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** But, having received the documents, no orders were passed by the Tahsildar. 3. In the meantime, the petitioners approached the Tahsildar for correcting the entry in the BTR register as the properties were described as Karam pathinja tharise. According to the petitioners, the property is Pandaravaka Verumpattam as evident from survey and settlement register produced as Exts.P12 and P13. Though these documents were produced, the Tahsildar issued Ext.P15 stating that since a civil appeal is pending as A.S.No.188/2009, without a final judgment in the said case, a decision with reference to the petitioners' property cannot be taken. 4. According to the petitioners, as far as the petitioners' claim is concerned, the matter is covered by the settlement register Ext.P12 and P13 in which the property is described as Pandaravaka W.P.(C) No. 21637/2012 - D **==> picture [7 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Verummpattam, which is treated as proprietary interest as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in **Purushothaman Namboodiri** v. **State of Kerala** (1962 K.L.T. 1 (S.C). as well as the proclamation issued by the Cochin Government. 5. Counter affidavit is filed by the 3[rd] respondent inter alia contending that since the BTR register shows that the property is Karam Pathinja. Tharisu it is Government land and therefore the proceedings had been initiated under the Land Conservancy Act for taking back possession of the property. Still it is further contended that though the tax had been remitted in respect of the property, actually the payments were received as fee for sketch. But, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners the actual tax was being remitted to the revenue authorities. W.P.(C) No. 21637/2012 - D 4 6. Still further it is contended in paragraph 6 of the affidavit that Pandaravaka Verumpattam does not confer any title on the petitioner. This argument does not appear to be correct as Pandaravaka Verumpattam land had already been given proprietary interest by way of Royal proclamation which is already confirmed by the Supreme Court in **Purushothaman Namboodiri** v. **State of Kerala** (1962 K.L.T. 1 (S.C). 7. Therefore as matters stand now, I do not think that the pendency of the civil dispute between some other claimants in respect of puramboke land will not preclude the revenue authorities from considering the claim of the petitioners. 8. In the result, Ext.P15 is liable to be set aside and appropriate directions are to be issued to the 5 W.P.(C) No. 21637/2012 - D 3[rd] respondent to consider the request of the petitioners for modifying the BTR register. Hence, the writ petition is allowed. Ext. P15 is set aside. The 3[rd] respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioners for change of entry in the BTR register and appropriate orders may be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Until an order is passed with reference to the aforesaid request of the petitioner, further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P5 and P6 shall be kept in abeyance. Sd/- ## **A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.** rka /true copy/