High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-07-28Writ petition disposed of with directions liste...

Kumar Ganapathy v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 18889/2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2021-07-28
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of with directions: (1) Respondents to receive land tax from the petitioner for the property covered by Ext.P1 from 2017 onwards; (2) Respondents to issue possession certificate, sketch, location sketch, and genuineness certificate in respect of the Ext.P1 property within three weeks; (3) Acceptance of tax and issuance of these certificates are subject to the result of any action taken by the Government in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions listed above, allowing tax payment from 2017 onwards and related certificate issuance, while reserving government action under law.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Kumar Ganapathy

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by Secretary, Revenue Department
The District Collector, Idukki
The Tahsildar, Devikulam Taluk
The Additional Tahsildar, Devikulam Taluk
The Village Officer, Munnar Village (substituted R5)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• M.N. Sanjith
• Sri Jaison Joseph
• Sri Sathian A.P.

Counsels for Respondents

• Government Pleader Sri. Y. Jafar Khan

Case Synopsis & Summary

Kumar Ganapathy, the petitioner, asserts exclusive possession and ownership of 4 cents of land in Sy.No.62/3A1, Munnar Village, based on a 1997 settlement deed (Ext.P1) and prior mutation. He states his father owned 9 cents of the same land (Ext.P2) and that mutation in his name has been effected, with tax receipts (Ext.P3) and licenses (Ext.P4) showing ongoing use, including a cottage and lodge (N.G.Cottage and N.G.Regency). He sought remission or payment of land tax for years post-2017 (Ext.P6) and argued that the government cannot bar tax collection by relying on a notice that the government intends to take action (Ext.P7). The Government contends the land is government land under pandaravaka/pandaravaga- pattom tenancy (Exts.P1, P2) and thus not taxable under the Land Tax Act; mutation does not convey title and should not create a tax liability. The court, while noting the government’s right to take action, held that mutation and payment of land tax do not by themselves create or extinguish title, and tax collection can be allowed subject to law. Accordingly, the petition is disposed with directions to accept land tax from 2017 onwards and to issue possession, sketches, and genuineness certificates, while preserving the government’s rights to take action.

Provisions of Law Cited

Land Tax Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Mutation of property and acceptance of tax will not by itself either create or extinguish title; it only enables payment of land revenue
A proposal to take action against a property is not a reason to refuse land tax

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner contends that Ext.P1 (settlement deed) and Ext.P2 prove ownership and that mutation in his favor has occurred; he has been in possession and running a cottage and lodge with licenses. He argues Ext.P7, indicating possible government action, cannot bar mutation or tax payment; mutation and tax payment are not contingent on title creation and mutation permits collecting tax. He seeks permission to pay land tax from 2017 onward and to obtain possession and genuineness certificates subject to statutory action.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents assert the land is government land under pandaravaka/pandaravaga- pattom tenure (Exts.P1, P2) and thus not taxable under the Land Tax Act; mutation cannot create or extinguish title; Ext.P7 shows a proposed action but does not negate law; government action may be initiated, and tax collection could be refused on government land.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sawarni v. Inder kaur and others	1996 (6) SCC 223	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that mutation and acceptance of tax do not by themselves create or extinguish title, and that mutation merely enables payment of land revenue.
Larson T. George v. State of Kerala	2019 (1) KLT 128	Positive	Cited to reinforce the principle that mutation and tax payment do not confer/title extinguish; mutation has no presumptive value on title.

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 Kumar Ganapathy v. State of Kerala 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 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF JULY 2021 / 6TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 18889 OF 2020** ## **PETITIONER:** KUMAR GANAPATHY AGED 57 YEARS S/O. LATE N. GANAPATHY, GANESH BHAVAN, K.D.H. VILLAGE , MUNNAR, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, 685 612. BY ADVS. M.N.SANJITH SRI.JAISON JOSEPH SRI.SATHIAN A.P. ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECOTRATE, KUILIMALA, PAINAVU P.O. IDUKKI DISTRICT, 685 603. 3 THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, DEVIKULAM IDUKKI 685 613. 4 THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI 685 613. *5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI 685 561. (R5 DELETED AND SUBSTITUTED) R5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUNNAR VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI-683 612. **2** ## **W.P.(C).No.18889/2020** AS PER ORDER DATED 04-11-20 IN IA I/20 AND 2/20 IN WP(C) ADDL.R6. THE TAHSILDAR (L.R), DEVIKULAM TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, IDUKKI-685 613. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 04-11-20 IN IA 1/2020. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.Y.JAFAR KHAN **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C).No.18889/2020** **3** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------W.P.(C).No.18889 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 28[th] day of July, 2021** ## **JUDGMENT** According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner and is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of 4 cents of property (1.62 Ares) comprised in Sy.No.62/3A1 of Munnar Village, Devikulam Taluk. According to the petitioner, his father settled the aforesaid property in favour of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 settlement deed. It is also stated in the writ petition that petitioner's father was the owner of 9 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.62/3A1, as per Ext.P2 document. The petitioner became the owner and in possession and enjoyment of the property covered by Ext.P1 document. It is stated that the petitioner's father had effected mutation of the aforesaid property and was paying land tax in his favour. After execution of Ext.P1 document, the petitioner also effected mutation in the revenue records in his name as the owner of the aforesaid 4 cents of property comprised in Sy.No.62/3A1 of Munnar Village. Ext.P3 is the tax receipt. **4** ## **W.P.(C).No.18889/2020** 2. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner, along with his family, is residing in the building situated in the aforesaid property. It is also stated that the petitioner is also conducting a cottage in a single room and a lodge, namely N.G.Cottage and N.G.Regency. Ext.P4 is the licence issued by the local Panchayat and Ext.P5 is the building tax receipt. The petitioner approached the 5[th] respondent for remitting land tax for the subsequent years, that is for the period 2017 -2018 onwards. Ext.P6 is the representation. Ext.P6 is rejected stating that the property belong to the Government and the petitioner cannot pay tax for the same. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner obtained the property as evident by Ext.P1. Admittedly the petitioner is in possession of the property. The counsel submitted that in Ext.P7, it is only stated that the Government intend to take action against the property. That is not a reason to deny mutation and to accept tax from the petitioner for the property covered by Ext.P1. The counsel **5** ## **W.P.(C).No.18889/2020** submitted that Ext.P7 is unsustainable. 5. The Government Pleader submitted that as evident by Exts.P1 and P2 documents itself, it is a government land. The Government Pleader takes me through the schedule of Ext.P1 document in which it is stated that 'pandaravaka'. The schedule of Ext.P2 document also says about the tenure of the land as 'pandaravagapattom (Kanan Devan Concession)'. The Government Pleader submitted that in the light of Exts.P1 and P2 documents, it is clear that the petitioner obtained the property with the knowledge that it is a government land. In such circumstances, in the light of the specific provision in the Land Tax Act, no tax can be accepted from a citizen for a government land. Hence the Government Pleader submitted that there is nothing to interfere with Ext.P7. 6. Admittedly the petitioner is in possession of the property covered by Ext.P1. Ext.P1 is a document executed in the year 1997 and Ext.P2 is a document executed in 1980. Admittedly no proceedings is initiated against the property even now, even though there is a proposal from the side of the respondents to take appropriate action against the property, as evident by Ext.P7. A proposal to take action against a **W.P.(C).No.18889/2020** **6** property is not a reason to refuse land tax. Admittedly the mutation of the property is already over and the petitioner paid tax till 2017. Therefore the refusal on the part of the respondents in accepting tax is unsustainable. Mutation of property and acceptance of tax will not by itself either create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title and it only enables the person in whose favour, mutation has been effected to pay land revenue in question **(** _**Sawarni v. Inder kaur and others**_ **[1996 (6) SCC 223]** and **Larson T. George v. State of Kerala [2019 (1) KLT 128])** . 7. In the light of the above principle, I think the petitioner can be allowed to pay tax reserving the right of the respondents to take appropriate steps in accordance to law against the property. The respondents will issue possession certificate, sketch, location sketch and genuineness certificate also to the petitioner subject to the condition that the respondents can take appropriate steps in accordance to law, if they want. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner: 1. Respondents are directed to receive land tax **7** ## **W.P.(C).No.18889/2020** from the petitioner from 2017 onwards for the property covered by Ext.P1. 2. The respondents are also directed to issue possession certificate, sketch, location sketch and genuineness certificate with respect to the property covered by Ext.P1 settlement deed, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 3. Acceptance of tax and issuance of possession certificate, sketch, location sketch and genuineness certificate are all subject to the result of any action taken by the Government in accordance to law. JV Sd/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** **W.P.(C).No.18889/2020** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18889/2020** ## PETITIONER EXHIBITS |EXHIBIT P1|TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO.| |---|---| ||1933 OF 1997 OF SRO, DEVIKULAM DATED| ||18.02.1997.| |EXHIBIT P2|TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.| ||849/1980 OF SRO DEVIKULAM.| |EXHIBIT P3|TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT| ||DATED 29.07.2016 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT| ||NO. 5.| |EXHIBIT P4|TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LICENSE DATED| ||19.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE MUNNAR GRAMA| ||PANCHAYATH.| |EXHIBIT P5|TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BUILDING TAX RECEIPT| ||DATED 18.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE MUNNAR| ||GRAMA PANCHAYATH.| |EXHIBIT P6|TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED| ||04.06.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER| ||BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO. 5.| |EXHIBIT P7|TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED| ||25.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT| ||NO. 5 TO THE PETITIONER.| |EXHIBIT P8|TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED| ||22.12.2016 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 4| ||ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM TO| ||RESPONDENT NO. 5.| |EXHIBIT P9|TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF POSSESSION| ||CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE| ||OFFICE, KDH VILLAGE DATED 05.02.2014.| |EXHIBIT P10|TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF OWNERSHIP| ||CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY,| ||MUNNAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED| ||30.01.2020.| |EXHIBIT P11|PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUILDING BELONGING| ||TO THE PETITIONER.| |RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS|| |ANNEXURE R4(A)|A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE| ||TAHSILDAR (LR) NO.C2-10466/2016 DATED| ||10.07.2020|