High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of with directions

Muhammed Ashraf M.A. v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 23389 of 2018

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • Alexander Thomas
Judgment Date
2018-07-27
Court Decision / Holding
The impugned Exhibit-P2 rejection order is set aside. Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to process the mutation application dated 04.07.2018 for the petitioner’s property under the Transfer of Registry Rules, and to complete mutation within four weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The authorities shall issue Possession Certificate, Location Sketch, and accept Land Tax as directed in Devassia’s judgments, within one month thereafter. If the petitioner has not filed such applications, he shall do so in the prescribed form. The directions in paragraph 14 of Devassia v. Sub Registrar (2015) 1 KLT 825 and other related judgments shall apply. The petition is disposed of with these directions.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of with directions

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Muhammed Ashraf M.A.

Respondents

  • State of Kerala
  • The Tahsildar, Peerumed Taluk
  • The Village Officer, Vagamon Village
  • Elappara Grama Panchayat

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri.TP.M. Ibrahim Khan (Sr.)
  • • Smt. P.J. Razia Beevi

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri.K.P.Madhu

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Muhammed Ashraf M.A., seeks to challenge an order (Exhibit-P2) denying mutation of title and related acts for his land purchased by registered sale deed (07.09.2015). He requests mutation, possession certificate, location sketch, and acceptance of land tax, arguing that the land is exempt under Section 81(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, and that there is no bar to transferring exempted land when used for non-exempted purposes. Respondents 2 and 3 (Tahsildar and Village Officer) refused mutation on grounds of exemption and doubts about fragmentation and non-exempt usage. The Court relies on a line of precedent (State Human Rights Protection Centre v. State of Kerala; Devassia v. Sub Registrar) establishing no legal bar to transferring exempted land and allowing mutation where title is valid, and cites directions from Devassia’s case (paragraph 14) to guide action. The Court directs mutation to proceed under the Transfer of Registry Rules, quashes the impugned rejection, and orders governing actions to issue possession and tax-related documents within set timeframes. The judgment reiterates that exemption cannot be used to stall mutation where valid title exists and directs the relevant authorities to act promptly, with further steps to be taken as per prior rulings. The matter is disposed of with directions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 - Section 81(1)Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 - Section 87

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • No legal bar for transferring exempted land
  • Transfer of exempted land as a whole or in part can be acted upon for the purpose of registration or effecting mutation
  • Registering authority shall not insist for no-objection certificate for the reason that the land is exempted land for the purpose of registration
  • Mutation to be effected within time frames as directed by precedent (e.g., four weeks from judgment)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner argued for quashing the impugned P2 order and directing mutation, possession certificate, location sketch, and acceptance of land tax on the basis of registered title. He relied on precedents (Devassia’s case and related judgments) that exempted-land mutation is permissible and urged compliance with directions to ensure title-based mutation and compliance with Section 81(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contended that the land being exempted requires careful verification of its status and use; they doubted fragmentation and non-exempt use, justifying rejection of mutation pending verification; the decision to reject was based on exemption status and procedural compliance.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State Human Rights Protection Centre, Thrissur and another v. State of Kerala and othersILR 2009 (3) KER 695 (DB)PositiveHeld there is no legal bar to transferring exempted land; supports the petition’s premise that mutation can proceed under the law.
Devassia v. Sub Registrar2015 (1) KLT 825PositiveProvided directions for mutation/registration of exempted land; followed by the High Court in subsequent petitions.
WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO.4803 OF 2014(A)—PositiveJudgment dated 13.02.2015 referenced as a basis for the directions adopted in these proceedings.

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 Muhammed Ashraf M.A. v. State of Kerala 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** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 5TH SRAVANA, 1940 WP(C).No. 23389 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER(S)** **MUHAMMED ASHRAF M.A., AGED 62 YEARS, SON OF LATE P.M.ABDUL KAREEM, RESIDING AT PULICKAL HOUSE, NADACKAL P.O., ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 121.** **BY ADVS.SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN (SR.) SMT.P.J.RAZIA BEEVI** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **2. THE TAHSILDAR, PEERUMED TALUK, PEERMADE-685 531.** **3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAGAMON VILLAGE, VAGAMON P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 503.** **4. THE ELAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT OFFICE, ELAPPARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 501.** **R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.P.MADHU** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **DSV/-** **WP(C).No. 23389 of 2018 (W)** **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **EXT.P1: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.2182/2015/1 DATED 07.09.2015 RELATING TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P1(A); A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.4694477(BOOK NO.24) DATED 04.07.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF THE FEES FOR THE MUTATION. EXT.P2: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.126/18(PV) DATED 07.07.2018 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 13.02.2015 IN WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO.4803 OF 2014(A). EXT.P4 A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 19.11.2015 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)NO.33235 OF 2015. EXT.P5: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 29.04.2016 IN WRIT PETITION(CIVIL)NO.16295 OF 2016(J). EXT.P6: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 13.02.2017 IN WRIT PETITION(CIVIL)NO.1137 OF 2017(N). EXT.P7: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 03.03.2017 IN WRIT PETITION(CIVIL)NO.3372 OF 2017(V). EXT.P8: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 15.06.2017 IN WRIT PETITION(CIVIL)NO.25194 OF 2016(Y). EXT.P9: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 18.12.2017 IN WRIT PETITION(CIVIL)NO.34871 OF 2017(H). EXT.P10: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 30.01.2018 IN WRIT PETITION(CIVIL)NO.2216 OF 2018. EXT.P11: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 26.03.2018 IN WRIT PETITION(CIVIL)NO.8999 OF 2018. EXT.P12: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 07.06.2018 IN WRIT PETITION(CIVIL)NO.17882 OF 2018. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **DSV/-** **NIL** **// TRUE COPY //** **P.A. TO JUDGE** **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ======================== W.P.(C) No. 23389 of 2018 ========================= _Dated this the 27[th] day of July, 2018_ ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **----------------------** The prayers in this writ petition are as follows: _“(i) To call for the records relating to Exhibits-P1, P1(a) and P2 Order and to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Exhibit-P2 Order issued by the 3[rd] respondent - Village Officer, Vagamon, being arbitrary illegal, discriminatory and tainted with malafides;_ _(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to effect mutation, issue Possession Certificate and Location Sketch of the property purchased by the petitioner as per ExhibitP1 Sale Deeds as sought for by him, forthwith and also forward a copy of such Certificate to 4[th] respondent-Panchayat as has been directed by this Honourable Court in Exhibit-P3 to P12 judgments and to accept the Land Tax from the petitioner for his property;_ W.P.(C) No.23389/18 : 2 : _(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to accept land tax form the petitioner relating to his property.”_ 2. Heard Sri.T.P.M.Ibrahim Khan, the learned Senior Counsel instructed by Smt.P.J.Razia Beevi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.P.Madhu, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Considering the nature of order proposed to be passed in this writ petition, notice to the 4[th] respondent Elappara Grama Panchayat, will stand dispensed with. 3. The petitioner has approached respondent Revenue Authorities concerned to effect the mutation of his property, which is covered by Exhibit-P1 Registered Sale Deed dated 07.09.2015 of SRO Peerumed and also issuance of Possession Certificate, Location Sketch and for acceptance of the Land Tax. It appears that respondent Revenue Authorities concerned have refused to accept the above said plea of the petitioner on the ground that the land in question is an exempted land and entertained doubts as to whether the land has been fragmented and is being used for non-exempted purpose. W.P.(C) No.23389/18 : 3 : 4. A Division Bench of this Court, in a case in _**State Human Rights Protection Centre, Thrissur and another V. State of Kerala and others**_ reported in _**[ILR 2009 (3) KER 695 (DB)]**_ as well as a learned Single Judge of this Court in the judgment in _**Devassia V. Sub Registrar**_ reported in _**[2015 (1) KLT 825]**_ held that there is no legal bar for transferring the exempted land and that the land in question is an exempted land under Section 81(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 and is being used for non-exempted purpose, then the competent Statutory Authorities can initiate action in terms of Section 87 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964. This Court has issued the following directions in paragraph 14 of the above said judgment in **Devassia's case (** _**Supra**_ **)** . Paragraph 14 in page No.830 of the said decision is reads as follows: _“14. In view of the above, these Writ Petitions are disposed with the following directions:_ _i. There shall be a direction to the Revenue Officials to effect mutation in respect of the properties obtained by the purchasers based on valid title._ _ii. If any of the properties are found to be converted before or after the purchase, the Revenue Officials are free to bring it to the notice_ W.P.(C) No.23389/18 : 4 : _of the Taluk Land Board or the appropriate Authorities to include the property in the account of the holder of land at the time of exemption for the purpose of ceiling._ _iii. The registering authority shall not insist for no-objection certificate for the reason that the land is exempted land for the purpose of registration._ _iv. The transfer of exempted land as a whole or in part can be acted upon for the purpose of registration or effecting mutation._ _v. In the light of the directions above, the Registering Authority and Revenue Officials are directed to do the needful in these matters to register the document and effect mutation within a period of four weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. No costs.”_ 5. The same line of directions has been issued by this Court in a series of other cases as has be seen from Exhibits-P3 to P12 judgments in various writ petitions. Therefore, going by the line of reasonings and directions issued in the above said judgments rendered by this Court in similar cases, it is ordered that the competent Authority among respondents 2 and 3 will take up the application made by the petitioner for grant of mutation for his property (the application dated 04.07.2018 referred to in the W.P.(C) No.23389/18 : 5 : impugned Exhibit-P2 rejection order), covered by Exhibit-P1 Registered Sale Deed, in accordance with the provisions contained in the Transfer of Registry Rules and take necessary action thereon. For facilitating such a remit, it is ordered that the impugned Exhibit-P2 rejection order will stand set aside. Necessary orders in this regard shall be taken without much delay, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment. 6. It is made clear that the application made by the petitioner for grant of mutation of his property cannot be rejected on the above said ground that the petitioner's land in question may be an exempted land within the purview of Section 81(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964. After passing orders on the application for granting mutation, the competent Authority among respondents 2 and 3 will also take the request made by the petitioner for issuance of Possession Certificate, Location Certificate and also for acceptance of Land Tax and the action in that regard shall be completed within one month thereafter. If the petitioner has not made any formal application for the grant of issuance of Possession Certificate, Location Sketch, acceptance of Land Tax etc., it is for him to make such an W.P.(C) No.23389/18 : 6 : application in the prescribed proforma, if any, before the competent Authority among respondents 2 and 3 for facilitating compliance in the above said directions. The other directions issued by this Court in paragraph 14 of _**Devassia's case [2015**_ _**(1) KLT 825]**_ will be applicable in this case also. With the said observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** DSV/30/7/18