Sasi C.C. and others v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V** **TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 9TH CHAITHRA, 1943** ## **WP(C).No.21231 OF 2020(D)** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 SASI C.C. AGED 63 YEARS S/O.K.N.CHELLAPPAN, KUZHIPURAYIDATHIL, UPPUTHARA, IDUKKI-685505. 2 VIJAYAMMA, AGED 59 YEARS W/O.SASI, KUZHIPURAYIDATHIL, UPPUTHARA, IDUKKI-685505. 3 ARUN SASI, AGED 33 YEARS S/O.SASI, KUZHIPURAYIDATHIL, UPPUTHARA, IDUKKI-685505.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.** **2 THE STATE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COLLECTOR, GOVERNMENT LAND RESUMPTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695001.** **3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI-685603. 4 THE TAHSILDAR, PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685538.** **WP(C).No.21231 OF 2020(D) 2** **5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, UPPUTHARA VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685505.** ## **SMT SHEEJA CS SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.21231 OF 2020(D) 3** ## **JUDGMENT** The 2nd petitioner is the wife and the 3rd petitioner is the son of the 1st petitioner. It is contended that the petitioners 1 and 2 are the absolute owners in title and possession of property having an extent of 2.43 Ares in Sy No.338/29 of Upputhara Village. The above property was purchased by them on the cover of Exhibit P1 sale deed vide No. 2730/1/97 of the Peerumedu SRO. They have effected mutation in their name and have been paying tax as is evident from Exhibit P2 tax receipt. The 3rd petitioner is the absolute owner in title and possession of property having an extent of 1.69 Ares in Sy. No.338/558 of Upputhara Village. The above property was purchased by the 3rd petitioner on the cover of Exhibit P3 sale deed vide No.3027/2015/l of the Peerumedu SRO. He has effected mutation in his name and has been paying tax as is evident from Exhibit P4 tax receipt. However, in Exhibits P2 and P4 receipts, an endorsement has been made that the tax is being accepted provisionally. 2. According to the petitioners, the property covered under Exhibits P1 and P3 was originally owned by Sri. Poulose Thekkineth and it was after changing several hands that the same was purchased **WP(C).No.21231 OF 2020(D) 4** by the petitioners herein. To substantiate the said fact, the petitioners rely on Exhibits P2(a) and P4(a) encumbrance certificates **.** 3. The petitioners contend that the provisions of the Land Tax Act, 1961, would not enable the Village officer to issue a tax receipt with an endorsement that the same is being accepted provisionally. It is contended that the petitioners 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 Exts.P1 and P3 sale deeds. However, their request was turned down by the 5th respondent by Exts.P5 and P6 orders on the ground that the issuance of revenue certificates has been interdicted by the 3rd respondent by Ext.P7 proceedings. The petitioners contend that Ext.P7 proceedings of the District Collector was challenged by several persons and this Court by Ext.P8 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 the law. The revenue authorities were ordered to accept basic tax **WP(C).No.21231 OF 2020(D) 5** 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 Exts.P9 and P10 judgments rendered by this Court relying on the principles laid by this Court in Ext.P8 judgment. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash Exts.P5 and P6 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 Exts.P1 and P3 and to remove the endorsement in Exts.P2 and P4 tax receipts. 4. I have heard Sri.Biju C. Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and the learned Government Pleader. 5. I have considered the submissions made across the Bar. 6. Exts.P1 and P3 sale deeds show that the petitioners have acquired title over the property covered under the respective deeds. 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 **WP(C).No.21231 OF 2020(D) 6** 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 receipts, they were informed that the revenue records cannot be issued to them in view of Ext.P7 proceedings No.GLR(LR)210/15/PERTCO dated 12.08.2016 of the Special Officer and Collector. I find that the above proceeding has already been set aside by this Court by Ext.P8 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. 7. The learned Government pleader has argued that the property owned by the petitioners are part 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 **WP(C).No.21231 OF 2020(D) 7** exempted purposes and therefore illegal. 8. 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 petitioners-landowners would be actually using the lands in question for non-exempted 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 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 petitioner 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 1 [2015(1) KLT 825] **WP(C).No.21231 OF 2020(D) 8** 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. 9. 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 Exhibits P1 and P3 and shall issue the same to the petitioners. It is also made clear that the tax receipt, if any, **WP(C).No.21231 OF 2020(D) 9** 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** **sru** **WP(C).No.21231 OF 2020(D) 10** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2730/1/97 DATED 23.10.97 OF PEERMADE SRO.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF BASIC TAX FOR THE YEAR 2020-2021 DATED 14.8.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P1.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3027/2015/I OF PEERMADE SRO.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF BASIC TAX FOR THE YEAR 2020-2021 DATED 14.8.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXT.P3.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 9.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER NOS. 1 & 2.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATIONS DATED 30.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER NO.3.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.GLR(LR)210/15/PER-TCO DATED 12.8.2016 OF THE SPECIAL OFFICER & COLLECTOR.** **EXHIBIT P7(A) TRUE COPY OF THE GO NO.172/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 6.6.2019.** **WP(C).No.21231 OF 2020(D) 11** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.11.2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.40002/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.3.2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.4647/2019. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 17.1.2020 IN WP(C) NOS.894/2020(J) AND 990/2020(W).** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:**