Resmy R and Rithu Krishna v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942** **W . P .(C) No.2846 OF 2021(E)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** |**1**|**RESMY R**| |---|---| ||**AGED 49 YEARS**| ||**D/O. P. REMANANDAN,**| ||**KRISHNAPADMAM,**| ||**THEKKUMKARA,**| ||**PULLICHIRA P.O,**| ||**KOLLAM-691 304.**| |**2**|**RITHU KRISHNA,**| ||**D/O. RESMY R,**| ||**KRISHNAPADMAM,**| ||**THEKKUMKARA,**| ||**PULLICHIRA P.O,**| ||**KOLLAM-691 304**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP**| ||**SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE**| ||**SMT.O.A.NURIYA**| ||**SRI.D.S.LOKANATHAN**| ||**SRI.ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV**| ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**THE STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,**| ||**SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 005**| |**2**|**THE VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM-691 010**| |**3**|**CHANDRAMOHANAN,**| ||**S/O. BHASKARAN, VIKAS NAGAR -70-(B),**| ||**RITHUCHANDRA, PATTATHANAM P.O,**| ||**KOLLAM-691 001**| W.P.(C) No.2846 OF 2021(E) 2 ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SMT A.C. VIDHYA - GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.2846 OF 2021(E) 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The 1[st] petitioner was the wife of the 3[rd] respondent and the 2[nd] petitioner is the elder daughter of the 1[st] petitioner. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2[nd] respondent Village Officer to accept the Land Tax of the land mentioned in Ext.P2 tax receipt dated 29.09.2016 from the petitioners, forthwith. 2. There were matrimonial disputes between the 1[st] petitioner and the 3[rd] respondent, which resulted in various litigations. Ultimately, a compromise was arrived at, as evidenced by Ext.P1 settlement petition dated 16.12.2016 in M.C. No.221 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Kollam. Condition No.2 of the said settlement petition, reads thus; "മമേൽ ഒനനന്നാം വവ്യവസ്ഥകൾ പനലലിക്കുനതലിമനനടടനപന്നാം തടന 2017 ടമേയയ് മേനസന്നാം 5-ാനാന്നാം തലിയ്യതലി എതലിർകകലി ടലിയനൾ തനമേസലിച്ചു വരുന വടമക്കേവലിള വലിലയ്മളജലിൽ മബനക്കേയ് 24- ൽ ററീസർമവ്വേ 107/2/4 -ൽ ടപട്ട വസ്തുവലിലന്നാം അതലിൽ ഉൾടപട്ട ടകട്ടലിടതലിൽ നലിനന്നാം നലിരുപനധലികന്നാം വലിടട്ടനഴലിഞ്ഞ ഹർജലികകലിക്കുന്നാം ടലിയനളുടട മൂത മേകളനയ ഋതു കൃഷ്ണനന്നാം മമേലലിൽ ടലി വസ്തുവലിമലന ടകട്ടലിടതലിമലന എതലിർകകലിക്കേയ് യനടതനരു വലിധ അവകനശടത ഉനയലിക്കേനൻ പനടലിലനതതുമേനണയ്.” The document marked as Ext.P3 is an order dated 07.02.2017 of the Family Court, Kollam in O.P. No.1176 of 2016, whereby that original petition filed by the petitioner’s husband, the 3[rd] respondent herein, was dismissed as the matter was settled between the parties. The W.P.(C) No.2846 OF 2021(E) 4 grievance of the petitioners is non acceptance of land tax by the 2[nd] respondent Village Officer, in respect of the property mentioned in Ext.P2 tax receipt dated 29.09.2016. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. Considering the nature of reliefs proposed to be granted, service of notice on the 3[rd] respondent is dispensed with. 4. In **Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner [(2007) 6** **SCC 186]** the Apex Court reiterated that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in 'record of rights'. The entries in revenue records or jamabandi have only 'fiscal purpose', i.e., payment of land revenue and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as the title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent Civil Court [vide **Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh (1993) 4 SCC 403** ]. 5. In **Sudan K.K. and others v. State of Kerala and others [2013 (4) KHC 201]** this Court held that the pendency of civil suit can ever be a bar with regard to the acceptance of land tax, unless specifically restrained from accepting the tax by virtue of any order passed by the court. 6. In **Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (died through legal** W.P.(C) No.2846 OF 2021(E) 5 **heirs) v. Arther Import and Export Company and Others [(2019) 3 SCC 191]** the Apex Court reiterated that the law on the question of mutation in the revenue records pertaining to any land and what is its legal value while deciding the rights of the parties is fairly well settled by a series of decisions of this Court. The Court has consistently held that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor it has any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. [see: **Sawarni (Smt.) v. Inder Kaur (1996) 6 SCC 223, Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (1997) 7 SCC 137 and Narasamma v. State of Karnataka (2009) 5 SCC 591)** ]. 7. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that in case the 1[st] petitioner produces the certified copy of Ext.P1 settlement petition dated 16.12.2016 and Ext.P3 order dated 07.02.2017, the 2[nd] respondent Village Officer will take necessary action on the request made to accept land tax, in respect of the property in question. 8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions; W.P.(C) No.2846 OF 2021(E) 6 (i) The 1[st] petitioner shall produce the certified copy of Ext.P1 settlement petition dated 16.12.2016 and Ext.P3 order dated 07.02.2017, before the 2[nd] respondent Village Officer, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. (ii) Thereafter, the 2[nd] respondent Village Officer shall consider the request made by the petitioners for accepting land tax, in respect of the property in question, and take an appropriate decision, within a further period of two weeks, with notice to the petitioners and also to the 3[rd] respondent. 9. In **State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra [(1996) 9 SCC 309]** the Apex Court held that no mandamus can be issued to direct the Government to refrain from enforcing the provisions of law or to do something which is contrary to law. In **Bhaskara Rao A.B. v. CBI [(2011) 10 SCC 259]** the Apex Court reiterated that, generally, no Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor can the Court direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. 10. Therefore, in terms of the direction contained in this W.P.(C) No.2846 OF 2021(E) 7 judgment, the 2[n] d respondent shall take an appropriate decision in the matter, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the relevant statutory provisions and also the law on the point. No order as to costs. **Sd/ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** MIN W.P.(C) No.2846 OF 2021(E) 8 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **THE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT PETITION IN M.C. 221/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KOLLAM, DATED 16.12.2016.** **EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 29.09.2016 IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2017 IN** **THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2017 IN O.P. NO. 1176/2016 IN WHICH EARLIER AN ATTACHMENT BEFORE JUDGMENT HAD BEEN ORDERED BY THE LEARNED FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM.**