Full Judgment
WP(C) NO. 16350 OF 2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 16350 OF 2020 PETITIONER/S: RAJU, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O NANUPILLA, RESIDING AT KARAKKATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, SEETHATHOD.P.O, KUMARAM PEROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA -689667. BY ADVS. M.JAYAKRISHNAN SRI.R.ANOOP RESPONDENT/S: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA .P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA -689645. 3 THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KONNI, PATHANAMTHITTA-689691. 4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHITTAR VILLAGE OFFICE, CHITTAR.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA-689663. WP(C) NO. 16350 OF 2020 2 5 THE SUB REGISTRAR, PERINADU SUB REGISTRY, PERINADU.P.O, PERINADU, PATHANAMTHITTA-689571. SMT K AMMINIKUTTY, SR GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 16350 OF 2020 3
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the revenue authorities in effecting transfer of registry in respect of an item of property over which, the petitioner holds absolute title and possession, this writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions.
2. The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner in title and
possession of the property admeasuring 4.05 Ares falling in Sy. No 946/6 of Chittar Village. He had purchased the property on the strength of Ext.P1 assignment deed. The petitioner contends that immediately thereafter, he approached the 4th respondent and filed Ext.P2 application seeking to effect the transfer of registry and to pay basic tax. The petitioner states that the 4th respondent refused to accept his application on the ground that the said property was earlier a plantation and was excluded from the ceiling limit of excess land as per Land Reforms Act. According to the petitioner, fragmentation of plantation by itself is not a ground to refuse acceptance of basic land tax after effecting mutation. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4th respondent to accept and consider Ext.P2 application and to take necessary steps on the WP(C) NO. 16350 OF 2020 4 same within a time to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court. b) Issue directions to the respondents 3 to 5 to effect transfer of registry in respect of the property obtained by the petitioner based on Ext.P1 sale deed.
3. I have heard Sri.M. Jayakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.A.C.Vidya, the learned Government Pleader.
4. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that section 81
of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is a special provision, with its main objective of giving exemption to certain lands including the lands maintained as plantations. It is contended that fragmentation of land which may lead to its conversion is prohibited as per the provisions of the Act. The records would reveal that the property of the petitioner was part of plantation land and as it has been converted in violation to the provisions of the Act, the declarant will have to be proceeded against. Necessary proceedings are being initiated against the original declarant.
5. I have considered the submissions made across the Bar.
6. Ext.P1 sale deed shows that the petitioner had acquired title over
the property covered under the deed on 6.2.2020. The reason assigned by the respondents for refusing to consider the application filed by the petitioner is that the property owned by the petitioner was part of a larger extent of properties categorised as plantation thus entitling them to an exemption WP(C) NO. 16350 OF 2020 5
under Sec.81(1) (e) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964. 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 subsequent purchasers 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 of the land for non exempted purposes and not at the stage when they seek revenue records. It was further held that State authorities are at liberty to raise all such contentions and objections at the appropriate time when a cause of action in that regard actually arises. Furthermore, this Court in Devassia v. Sub Registrar [2015(1) KLT 825] has held that the provisions of the KLR Act do not place an embargo on transfer. The transfer of registry being for fiscal purposes, it is open to the competent authority to reopen the ceiling proceedings to include the land exempted for the purpose of the ceiling and the same would not be lost on account of effecting mutation. In view of the principles above, 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.
Resultantly, this petition will stand allowed. There will be a direction to the competent among respondents to take up Ext.P2 application filed by the petitioner and effect transfer of registry and to accept tax within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear WP(C) NO. 16350 OF 2020 6 that it would be open to the State to initiate appropriate proceedings under the Land Reforms Act if a case is made out and in such event, the same shall be in strict adherence to law and with due notice to all concerned.
Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE NS WP(C) NO. 16350 OF 2020 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16350/2020 PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.139/2020 OF SUB REGISTER OFFICE PERUNAD DATED 06.02.2020. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICAITON FOR TRANSFER OF REGISTRY DATED 06.02.2020. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT NO.943259 DATED 01.O6.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.02.2020 IN WP(C)NO.2248 OF 2020 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL