Sunil Kumar and Abhilash P.J. v. Sub Registrar Peermade, State of Kerala, The District Collector, Idukki District, and Addl. R4 Maneesh Thomas

WP(C) No.3801/2022 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI** **FRIDAY, THE 17[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 3801 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER:** 1 SUNIL KUMAR AGED 49 YEARS S/O SANTHAPPAN, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT SARAVANACKAL HOUSE, PALLIKUNNU P.O., ELAPPARA VILLAGE, PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-683 531. 2 ABHILASH P.J, S/O JOHNSON C, RESIDING AT PUTHENPURACKAL HOUSE, ELAPPARA KARA, ELAPPARA P.O.PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 501. BY ADVS. SRI G.HARIHARAN SRI PRAVEEN.H. SMT.K.S.SMITHA SRI V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR SRI TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN (SR.) ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE SUB REGISTRAR SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, PEERMADE, PEERMADE P.O.,IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 531. 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR IDUKKI DISTRICT AT CIVIL STATION PAINAVU, KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 603. **ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED** ADDL.R4. MANEESH THOMAS, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O THOMAS NELLIKKA MANNIL HOUSE, WP(C) No.3801/2022 2 VELANILAM P.O., VETTUKALLAMKUZHI, MUNDAKKAYAM, KOTTAYAM – 686 513. (ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.20.5.2022 IN IA 1/22 IN WPC 3801/2022) BY ADVS SRI JAFFAR KHAN, GOVT.PLEADER ADV HARSHADEV M. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.12.2022, THE COURT ON 17.3.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No.3801/2022 3 **T.R. RAVI, J. -------------------------------------------W.P.(C)No.3801 of 2022 -------------------------------------------Dated this the 17th day of March, 2023** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners are transferees of portions of land owned by M/s Goldview Vyapar Private Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act and having its head office at Kolkata, West Bengal. The 1[st] petitioner has purchased 3 hectares 64 Ares and 23 M[2] of thottam land and the 2[nd] petitioner has purchased 1 hectares 1 Are and 17 M[2 ] of land in Sy.No.39/1/1, Elappara Village, Peermedu Taluk, Idukki District. 2. Exts.P2 and P4 are the copies of the sale deeds. On 0401-2022, the petitioners along with the seller submitted the sale deeds for registration before the 1[st] respondent. They remitted the registration fee as well as the stamp duty required for the registration. The 1[st] respondent returned the sale deeds stating that the registration cannot be effected as the 3[rd] respondent has issued Ext.P6 order restraining sale of plantation land of shorter extents, invoking the power under Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the KLR Act). Ext.P7 is the memo evidencing the return of Ext.P2 and P4, along with three other sale deeds produced by the seller. The writ petition has been filed in the WP(C) No.3801/2022 4 above circumstances, praying to quash Ext.P6 to the extent it affects the registration of Exts.P2 and P4 documents and for a direction to the 1[st] respondent to register the original of Exts.P2 and P4. 3. The counsel for the petitioner places reliance of Ext.P8 judgment of this Court, which was rendered in similar circumstances. This Court held that the respondents cannot interdict sale on the ground that the lands involved were exempted lands. Sri Jaffar Khan, Senior Government Pleader supports Ext.P6 order on the reason that under Section 81(4) of the KLR Act, only 5% of the plantation land can be permitted to be converted and sale of smaller extents of the land will affect the very purpose for which the exemption is granted for plantations under the KLR Act. He relies on the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in **Mathew K.Jacob & Anr. v. District Environmental Impact Assessment** **Authority** reported in [ **2018(4) KLT 913]** and submits that prevention of fragmentation is also an intention behind the enactment. Specific reference was made to paragraphs 11,12 and 13 of the judgment. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in **One Earth One Life and others v. State of Kerala & Ors. [2019 (1) KLT 985]** to submit that fragmentation of the estate has to be treated as a case of conversion of the plantation into some other category of land. WP(C) No.3801/2022 5 4. Section 81(4) of the KLR Act permits the use of exempted land for the purpose of construction of hotels, resorts, or other tourism projects upto an upper limit of 10 acres. The said provision is an enabling provision that permits the estate owner to utilise a portion of his estate for the purposes mentioned therein, without in any manner affecting the exemption granted for the estate from the provisions of the KLR Act. The provision cannot be read to mean that other than the area specified in the section, no further extent of the estate can be used for non-plantation purposes. Regarding the contention that exempted land (plantation in this case) cannot be used for any other purpose, the law is settled. The consequence of such use can only be that the excess area liable to be surrendered under the KLR Act will have to be reworked. The dictum in **Mathew K.Jacob (supra)** relied on by the Senior Government Pleader is only to that effect. The above judgment has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Nazar v. Mathew K.Jacob [2019 (4) KLT 82 (SC)** . In **One Earth One Life (supra)** , this Court was concerned with the transfer of portions of the Kinalur Estate to several persons including the employees and legal heirs, causing a fragmentation of the entire plantation. This Court did not accept the contention that the fragmented estate will remain to be a plantation. The Court held that the object of the enactment in granting exemption was to WP(C) No.3801/2022 6 ensure that the plantation remained a plantation contributing to the economy of the State and welfare of the people as a whole. This Court however did not consider all the situations in which fragmentation can occur. For instance, a plantation that is owned by a single owner, can by operation of the law of succession, get fragmented on the death of the owner. There can be ever so many like situations. 5. A Division Bench of this Court has recently in its judgment dated 1.3.2023 in **State of Kerala & Ors. v. M.C.George (W.A.No.102 of 2022)** considered a similar situation where an order was issued invoking the power available under Section 120A of the KLR Act. The contentions based on the fragmentation of the plantation, the purpose of the KLR Act, and the power available under Section 120A were raised before the Division Bench by the Senior Government Pleader in the appeal filed by the State. The Court held that the power available under Section 120A is to prevent a transfer which is intended to defeat the provisions of the KLR Act. The Court noticed that the KLR Act contains various provisions protecting the interests of the tenant and the State. The Court opined that the very purpose of the provision may be to prevent the sale of the excess land in possession of the declarant. The Division Bench negatived the contentions and dismissed the writ appeal. The concerned Registrar was directed to register the WP(C) No.3801/2022 7 documents which were the subject matter in the said appeal if all other conditions are satisfied. Since a Division Bench has already pronounced on the issue and I am in respectful agreement with the dictum laid down by the Division Bench, there is no necessity to reconsider the same question. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 praying for extending the validity of the Stamp papers used for the sale deeds in question, as the case was pending before this Court from February, 2022. The prayer is justified and is allowed. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P6 order to the extent if affects the registration of the originals of Exts.P2 and P4 sale deeds is quashed. The 1[st] respondent is directed to register the originals of Exts.P2 and P4 sale deeds when presented by the petitioner if the same are otherwise in order, treating the documents as presented within the time prescribed by the statute. The 1[st] respondent shall treat the stamp papers used for execution of the documents as valid. The petitioner shall present the documents before the 1[st] respondent for registration within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- **T.R. RAVI JUDGE** **==> picture [324 x 38] intentionally omitted <==** dsn WP(C) No.3801/2022 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3801/2022** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|||||| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY|OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING|||| ||OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF M/S GOLDVIEW||||| ||VYAPAAR PRIVATE LIMITED, TAKEN|||IN ITEM NO|| ||3 OF THE MEETING HELD ON 9.12.2021||||| |Exhibit P2|TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED||||| ||4.1.2022 PRESENTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER||||| ||AND SELLER OF THE PROPERTY BEFORE THE||||1ST| ||RESPONDENT||||| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY|OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT|||| ||FOR ONLINE TOKEN REGISTRATION ISSUED BY||||| ||THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 4.1.2022|||EVIDENCING|| ||RECEIPT OF STAMP DUTY OF RS 7,20,000/-||||| ||AND REGISTRATION FEE||OF RS, 1.80,145/-||| |Exhibit P4|TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED||||| ||4.1.2022 PRESENTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER||||| ||AND THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY|||BEFORE|THE| ||1ST RESPONDENT.||||| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY|OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED|||| ||4.1.2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT||||| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY|OF THE GENERAL ORDER||DATED|| ||15.12.2018 ISSUED BY||THE 3RD RESPONDENT||| ||ADDRESSED|TO THE 1ST|RESPONDENT||| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY|OF THE MEMO DATED 5.1.2022|||| ||ISSUED BY|THE 1ST RESPONDENT EVIDENCING|||| ||RETURN OF|EXHIBIT P2|AND P4 SALE DEEDS||| ||ALONG WITH THREE OTHER SALE DEEDS||||| ||PRODUCED BY M/S GOLD||VIEW VYAAPAR OVT||LTD| ||(HOPE PLANTATION LTD)||||| |Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY|OF THE JUDGMENT MADE||IN WPC|NO| ||1529/2019|DATED 18.1.2019 BY THIS HON'BLE|||| ||COURT||||| |RESPONDENT EXHIBITS|||||| |Exhibit R4(a)|TRUE COPY|OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED|||| ||1/11/2021|IN WPC NO.|21497 OF 2021||| |Exhibit R4(b)|TRUE COPY|OF THE ORDER DATED 7/12/2021|||| ||PASSED BY|THE REGIONAL EMPLOYEES|||| WP(C) No.3801/2022 9 ||PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER|PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER|PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER|| |---|---|---|---|---| |EXHIBIT R3(a)|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MATHEW K|||| ||JACOB AND ANOTHER VS. DISTRICT|||| ||ENVIRONMENTAL||IMPACT ASSESSMENT, 2018|(5)| ||KHC 487.|||| |EXHIBIT R3(b)|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN ONE EARTH|||| ||ONE LIFE VS. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS,|||| ||2019 KHC, 221.|||| |EXHIBIT R3(c)|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN STATE HUMAN|||| ||RIGHTS PROTECTION CENTRE, THRISSUR AND|||| ||ANOTHER|VS. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS||| ||2009 (3|) KHC|682.|| |EXHIBIT R3(d)|A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN NAZAR.K.H|||| ||VS. MATHEW.K.JACOB AND OTHERS 2019 (4)|||| ||KHC 919.|||| |EXHIBIT R3(e)|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WA NO. 102/2022|||| ||DATED 25.01.2022.||||