Allowed

Samuel Oommen v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Oct 2016CRP(LR)/64/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside a Taluk Land Board order requiring petitioners to obtain fresh certificates of title under Sec. 106B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Court held that transfer of right and title via the Secure purchase certificate under Sec. 72K is conclusive, exempting subsequent purchasers from securing new certificates under Sec. 106B for ceiling reduction purposes.

What did the court decide?

Taluk Land Board order requiring fresh certificate of title under Sec. 106B set aside; petitioners property excluded from declarant’s ceiling; Revenue directed to accept tax.

Samuel Oommen Vs the State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/21ST ASWINA, 1938

¶5

CRP(LR).No. 64 of 2015 (B)

¶6

[ORDER DATED 6/1/2015 IN TLB (CR) 108/CHR OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD, CHENGANNUR.

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

-----------

¶9

SAMUEL OOMMEN, RESIDING AT VILAYIL HOUSE, PALLICKAL KIZHAKKEKARA MURI, MAVELIKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY JOY OOMMEN, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. OOMMEN RESIDING AT VILAYIL HOUSE, PALLICKAL KIZHAKKEKARA MURI, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SMT.SABINA JAYAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

------------

¶13

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

2. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, CHENGANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHENGANNUR-629 121.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. HASHIR.K.M.

¶16

THIS CRP (LR) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ALONG WITH CRP (LR) NOS.84 & 89 OF 2015 ON 13-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K. HARILAL, J.

¶18

C.R.P. (LR) Nos. 64, 84 and 89 of 2015

¶19

------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 13^th day of October, 2016

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Since the facts are identical and legal issues are common, all these revision petitions are heard together and disposed of accordingly.

¶22

Mr. Samuel Oommen, the petitioner in C.R.P. No.64/2015 is in the absolute possession and enjoyment of the 35 Ares and 0.5 Sq. Mtrs. of property comprised in Re.Sy.No.269/12-3 of Thekkekara Village by virtue of Sale Deed No.2237/95. Mr. K.U. Binni, the petitioner in C.R.P. No.84/2015 is in absolute possession and enjoyment of 34 Ares and 81 Sq. Mtrs. of property comprised in Re.Sy.Nos.337/37/1 and 337/21 by virtue of a registered Will dated 5/1/1998 executed by his father Unnikrishna Pillai. Unnikrishna

¶23

C.R.P. (LR) Nos. 64, 84 and 89 of 2015 -: 2 :-

¶24

Pillai got the said property by virtue of the sale deed dated 29/5/1986 executed by his father G.P. Raghavan Pillai and exchange deed No.1133 executed between Unnikrishna Pillai and his sister with respect to the property obtained from their father. Smt. Elizabeth Samuel, the petitioner in C.R.P. No.89/2015, is the absolute possession and enjoyment of 30 Ares and 96 Sq. Mtrs. of property comprised in Re.Sy. No.269/12 of Thekkekara Village by virtue of Sale Deed No.2238/95 of Mavelikara S.R.O. Samuel Oommen and Elizabeth Samuel purchased the aforesaid property from one Kamalasanan who had purchased the said property, from one G.P. Raghavan Pillai, as per Sale Deed No.1326/93 of Mavelikkara S.R.O. and the said G.P. Raghavan Pillai was the owner in possession of 3 Acres and 75 cents of land, including the aforesaid property, by virtue of the Purchase Certificate issued to him, pursuant to the judgment dated 26/7/1985 passed by the Appellate Authority, Alappuzha. The

¶25

C.R.P. (LR) Nos. 64, 84 and 89 of 2015 -: 3 :-

¶26

Tribunal had issued Purchase Certificate dated 14/12/1988 in his favour with respect of 3 Acres and 75 cents of land comprised in old Sy.Nos.63/9, 66/6-A and 79/19/B-22 of Thrikkakara Village. Accordingly, G.P. Radhavan Pillai has been in possession and enjoyment of the property from 1950 onwards and while so, he had obtained the said Purchase Certificate under Sec.72K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. According to Samuel Oommen and Elizabeth Samuel, after the purchase of the above said property from Kamalasanan, they have mutated the property in their favour and have been paying tax for the same. According to K.U. Binny, on the death of his father, the Will has come into force, he had mutated the property and has been paying tax for the same. Thus, Mr. G.P. Raghavan Pillai, who had obtained the Purchase Certificate with respect to the aforesaid property under Sec.2(k) of the Land Reforms Act is the predecessor in interest of the petitioners.

¶27

C.R.P. (LR) Nos. 64, 84 and 89 of 2015 -: 4 :-

¶28

Their common grievance is that when they went to remit tax for the year 2009-10, the Village Officer refused to accept the tax on the ground that he has direction from the Tahsildar not to accept tax from the petitioners until further orders and later, they were informed that as per order No.1 (CR)108/CHR dated 7/1/2000, their properties are included in the ceiling area of one Ala Krishna Pillai and the Revenue authorities are directed not to receive tax for the said property from the petitioners.

¶29

The petitioners approached this Court by filing Writ Petitions and this Court directed the petitioners to make claim petition under Sec.85(6) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Thereafter, the petitioners had filed claim petitions and got them rejected. Aggrieved by the orders, the petitioners preferred C.R.Ps. and this Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted back the cases to the Taluk Land Board for fresh consideration, as per judgment dated

¶30

C.R.P. (LR) Nos. 64, 84 and 89 of 2015 -: 5 :-

¶31

5/6/2014. Thereafter, the Taluk Land Board considered the claim petitions and disposed the same on a finding that the petitioners are deemed tenants under Sec.7E of the K.L.R. Act and directed the petitioners to produce Certificate of Title issued under Sec.106B of the K.L.R. Act for further consideration. The legality and propriety of the aforesaid finding are under challenge in these Civil Revision Petitions.

¶32

Heard Sri. R. Rajasekharan Pillai, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Government Pleader in detail.

¶33

The operative portion of the impugned order reads as follows:

¶34

“On further verification of the records, it is found that the petitioners bought the land which is to be surrendered to the Govt. by the declarant by virtue of purchase deed. As per the amendment act 21/06, the petitioners in this case are considered as deemed tenants

¶35

C.R.P. (LR) Nos. 64, 84 and 89 of 2015 -: 6 :-

¶36

as per KLR Act 7E. As per KLR Act 106(B) the deemed tenants should obtain a certificate of title from the land tribunal in prescribed form and submit before the Taluk Land Board. On production of the certificate of title, the extend held by deemed tenants shall be reduced from the ceiling area of the declarant and thereafter you may get the right over your property.”

¶37

Going by the aforesaid finding, it stands admitted by the Taluk Land Board that the petitioners are deemed tenants as per Sec.7E of the K.L.R. Act, though the said finding is also challenged in these revisions. According to Samuel Oommen and Elizabeth Samuel, they had purchased the property from Kamalasanan and he, in turn, purchased the property from G.P. Raghavan Pillai to whom Purchase Certificate had been issued with respect to the aforesaid properties under Sec.72K of the K.L.R. Act. According to Binny, his father Unnikrishna Pillai also got the property by

¶38

C.R.P. (LR) Nos. 64, 84 and 89 of 2015 -: 7 :-

¶39

virtue of a Sale Deed from G.P. Raghavan Pillai. Thus, indisputably, the petitioners' right and title stand derived from Purchase Certificate dated 14/12/1988 issued under Sec.72K of the K.L.R. Act to the aforesaid G.P. Raghavan Pillai. According to sub-sec.(1) of Sec.72K of the K.L.R. Act, the Certificate of Title issued to the tenant shall be conclusive proof of the assignment of the right, title and interest of the land owner over the holding. Thus, the Purchase Certificate issued to the Raghavan Pillai stands in conclusiveness, without challenge.

¶40

In this context the decision laid down by this Court in Ahmmed Kutty v. Mariakutty Umma [2000(1) KLT 829 (SC)] is very relevant and it reads as follows:

¶41

“8. When the enactment enjoined that any evidence would be treated as conclusive proof of certain factual position or legal hypothesis the law would forbid other evidence to be adduced for the purpose of contradicting or varying the

¶42

C.R.P. (LR) Nos. 64, 84 and 89 of 2015 -: 8 :-

¶43

aforesaid conclusiveness. This is the principle embodied in S.4 of the Evidence Act, when it defined “conclusive proof”.

¶44

“Conclusive proof - When one fact is declared by this Act to be conclusive proof of another, the Court shall, on proof of that one fact, regard the other as proved, and shall not allow evidence to be given for the purpose of disproving it.”

¶45

Of course, the interdict that the court shall not allow evidence to be adduced for the purpose of disproving the conclusiveness, will not prevent a party who alleges fraud or collusion from establishing that the document is vitiated by such facts. Except regrading the said limited sphere the conclusiveness of the document would remain beyond the reach of controvertibility.”

¶46

According to Sec.106B of the K.L.R. Act, such deemed tenants may apply and obtain certificate of title in

¶47

C.R.P. (LR) Nos. 64, 84 and 89 of 2015 -: 9 :-

¶48

respect of the land held by him. It is pertinent to note that the word 'may' is used and it gives rise to an inference that the said provision is incorporated to grant a certificate of title to the deemed tenants who are desirous of getting it. Here, the question is, whether a deemed tenant under Sec.7E of the K.L.R. Act, who purchased the holding and derives his title from the certificate of title issued under Sec.72K of the K.L.R. Act, to his predecessor in interest, is required to obtain and produce a fresh certificate of title, under Sec.106B of the K.L.R. Act, in his name, to get reduced his holding from the ceiling area of the declarant, with respect to the same holding, notwithstanding the certificate of title that had been granted to his predecessor in interest.

¶49

Of course, if he is desirous of getting a fresh certificate in his name also, he may apply for the same and obtain it. In view of the conclusiveness of the purchase certificate issued to the predecessor in

¶50

C.R.P. (LR) Nos. 64, 84 and 89 of 2015 -: 10 :-

¶51

interest, it cannot be said that unless and until the petitioners have obtained a fresh certificate of title in his name under Sec.106B of the K.L.R. Act, he cannot be considered as a deemed tenant, under Sec.7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. If the person, who holds the land satisfies all the statutory requirements, under Sec.7E of the KLR Act and derives his right and title from the certificate of title granted, to his predecessor in interest, under Sec.72(K) of the KLR Act, he can be considered as a deemed tenant and all the rights and privileges of the deemed tenant also can be given to him, notwithstanding the absence of fresh certificate under Sec.106B of the KLR Act, in his name. Once a purchase certificate is issued under Sec.72K with respect to a land, the right and title conveyed under the certificate would run along with the land and the subsequent purchasers also can derive their right and title therefrom and a fresh certificate under Sec.106B of the KLR Act is not required to establish the

¶52

C.R.P. (LR) Nos. 64, 84 and 89 of 2015 -: 11 :-

¶53

conveyance of right and title by the earlier land owner to the new purchaser.

¶54

A deemed tenant under Sec.7E of the KLR Act, who derives his right and title from certificate of title granted to his predecessors or predecessors in interest under Sec.72K of the KLR Act, shall not be required to again obtain and produce a fresh certificate of title in his name with respect to his land in compliance with Sec.106B of the KLR Act, for reducing his land from the ceiling area of the declarant. Once the landlord's title was purchased by depositing the purchase price and obtained purchase certificate, there cannot be a further transfer of title and interest by purchase as the landlord had already lost the same. Going by the records, it could be seen that the respondents themselves have admitted in various reports and orders passed earlier that Sri. G.P. Raghavan Pillai had obtained a certificate of title dated 14/12/1988 under Sec.72K of the KLR Act,

¶55

C.R.P. (LR) Nos. 64, 84 and 89 of 2015 -: 12 :-

¶56

pursuant to the judgment dated 26/7/1985 passed by the Appellate Authority with respect to 3 Acres and 75 cents of property, and the petitioners' property forms a part of that property. Thus, the petitioners' right and title stand derived from the certificate of purchase granted to Sri. G.P. Raghavan Pillai, their predecessor in interest.

¶57

In the above analysis, the Taluk Land Board is not justified in requiring production of fresh certificate of title under Sec.106B of the KLR Act, for reducing the petitioners' property, from the ceiling area of the declarant Krishna Pillai Narayana Pillai. The petitioners' property which is referred above will stand reduced from the ceiling area of the declarant and the Taluk Land Board is directed to make necessary corrections in all the records accordingly, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Revenue Authorities are directed to receive tax from the petitioners with

¶58

C.R.P. (LR) Nos. 64, 84 and 89 of 2015 -: 13 :-

¶59

respect to the aforesaid properties and treat the property as if no ceiling proceedings had been initiated against them under the KLR Act. That part of the impugned order which requires production of the certificate of title under Sec.106B of the KLR Act in the operative portion of the order will stand set aside.

¶60

These Civil Revision Petitions will stand allowed.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)

¶63

Nan/

¶64

//true copy//

¶65

P.S. to Judge

Samuel Oommen v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samuel Oommen v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.V. Sunny Vs T.N. Baby

V.Velayudhan Vs K.S.H.B.

Sasikala Vs K.Sukumaran

Ananda Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Sarasamma Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Ashik Ibrahim Vs Rajappan @ Reghu