C. T. Joseph & Jessy Joseph v. State of Kerala & 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.6135 OF 2021(N)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 C.T.JOSEPH AGED 65 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, CHEMBANIKKAL HOUSE, UPPUTHARA VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** - **2 JESSY JOSEPH, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.C.T.JOSEPH, CHEMBANIKKAL HOUSE, UPPUTHARA VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** - **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, COLLECTORATE, 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.6135 OF 2021(N) 2** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners herein are senior citizens. They state that the 1st petitioner is in title and possession of property having an extent of 40.47 Ares in Survey No.338 of Peermade SRO, Upputhara Village which he had obtained as per Ext.P1 sale deed executed and registered on 26.8.1998. The 2nd petitioner is the wife of the 1st petitioner and she is in title and possession of property having an extent of 38.45 Ares in Survey No.338 of Peermade SRO, Upputhara Village which she had obtained as per Ext.P1(a) sale deed executed and registered on 27.8.1998. They contend that the property covered under Exts.P1 and P1(a) originally belonged to one Sri. Devassia and Sri. Joseph and it was after changing several hands that the property was purchased by the petitioners herein. Exts.P1(b) and P1(c) encumbrance certificates are relied on to substantiate the said fact. According to the petitioners, they have been remitting tax in respect of the above property and reliance is placed on Exts.P2 and P2(a). However, in the tax receipts, an endorsement is made that the tax is being accepted provisionally. The petitioner contend that the provisions of the Land Tax Act, 1961, would not enable the Village officer to issue ## **WP(C).No.6135 OF 2021(N) 3** a tax receipt with an endorsement that the same is being accepted provisionally. 2. The petitioners contend that they have approached the revenue authorities and sought for issuance of Record of Rights certificate, Location sketch, Possession certificate and other revenue certificates in respect of the property covered under Ext.P1 and P1(a) deeds. However, their request was turned down by the 5th respondent by Ext.P3 and P3(a) orders on the ground that the issuance of revenue certificates have been interdicted by the 3rd respondent by Ext.P4 proceedings. The petitioner contends that Ext.P4 proceedings of the District Collector was challenged by several persons and this Court by Ext.P5 judgment dated 7.11.2018 had held 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 petitioners also rely on Ext.P6 and P7 judgments rendered by this Court relying on the principles laid by this Court in ## **WP(C).No.6135 OF 2021(N) 4** Ext.P5 judgment. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P3 and P3(a) orders and for a further direction to the 5th respondent to issue revenue certificates such as Possession Certificate, Location Sketch, Record of Rights etc. in respect of the property covered under Ext.P1 and P1(a) and to remove the endorsement in Ext.P2 and P2(a) tax receipts. 3. I have heard Sri.Biju C. Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader. 4. I have considered the submissions made across the Bar. 5. Ext.P1 and P1(a) sale deeds would reveal that the petitioners have acquired title over the properties covered under the deed. They have produced records showing that transfer of registry has been effected in their favour and they have been paying tax. However, in the tax receipts, an endorsement has been made to the effect that the tax is being received provisionally. Their grievance is that when they sought for issuance of Possession Certificate, ROR Certificate and other revenue records and also for removing the endorsement in the tax receipt, they were informed that the revenue records cannot be issued to them in view of Ext.P4 proceedings No.GLR(LR)210/15/PER-TCO dated 12.08.2016 of the Special Officer and Collector. I find that the ## **WP(C).No.6135 OF 2021(N) 5** above proceeding has already been set aside by this Court by Ext.P5 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. In that view of the matter, there is no justification on the part of the respondents in refusing to issue the certificates sought for by the petitioners on that count. 6. The respondents have raised a contention that the property owned by the petitioners are parts 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 the land for quarrying purposes and not at the stage when they seek a Possession Certificate for any such ## **WP(C).No.6135 OF 2021(N) 6** 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 petitioners without being burdened down by the 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. 1[2015(1) KLT 825] ## **WP(C).No.6135 OF 2021(N) 7** 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 petitioners 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 petitioners. Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the concerned respondent to forthwith take up the request made by the petitioners for issuance of revenue certificates like Possession Certificate, location sketch, ROR certificate, etc. in respect of the properties covered under Ext.P1 and P1(a) and shall issue the same to the petitioners. It is also made clear that the tax receipt, if any, issued to the petitioners, 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.6135 OF 2021(N) 8** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2308/1998 DATED 26/8/1998 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P1(a) TRUE OF THE SALE DEED NO.2316/1998 DATED 27/9/1998 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 25/2/2021 WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P1. EXHIBIT P1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 25/2/2021 WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P1(a). EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 18/6/2020 WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P1. EXHIBIT P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 18/6/2020 WITH REGARD TO THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P1(a) EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4/2/2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4/2/2021 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.GLR(LR) 210/15/PER-TCO DATED 12/8/2016 OF THE SPECIAL OFFICER & COLLECTOR. EXHIBIT P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE GO NO.172/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 6/6/2019. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7/11/2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.40002/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES.** **WP(C).No.6135 OF 2021(N) 9** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/2/2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.4647/2019. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 13/7/2020 IN WP(C) NOS.13736/2020(N).** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL**