Allowed

Mohammed Basheer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Oct 2016WP(C)/18508/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed writ petitions challenging notices seeking surrender of land. The court held purchasers who acquired land during the relevant period are deemed tenants under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, entitled to fixity of tenure and directed to approach authorities for purchase certificates.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notices set aside and petitioners to approach appropriate authority for Purchase Certificate.

Mohammed Basheer Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/28TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 18508 of 2007 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MOHAMMED BASHEER, S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALIYAKATH HOUSE, EDATHIRUTHY P.O., KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ABDUL RAZAK, S/O.MOHAMMED, AMBALATHU VEETTIL,, VALAPPAD BEACH POST, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR.

¶12

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDATHIRINJI VILLAGE OFFICE, EDATHIRINJI, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

4. THE TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, TALUK OFFICE MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMST.VINEETHA HARIRAJ

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-10-2016 ALONG WITH WPC.19530/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

mbr/

¶17

WP(C).No. 18508 of 2007 (C)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT. P1 :	TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT. P2 :	TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1194/1977 OF KATTUR SUB REGISTRY.
EXT. P3 :	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT. P4 :	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT. P5 :	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT. P6 :	TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.2333/1978 IN O.A.NO.1787/76 ISSUED BY DEPUTY COLLECTOR/LAND TRIBUNAL, THIRUVAMPADY, THRISSUR DISTRICT OF THE PREDECESSOR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT. P7 :	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 12.6.2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶26

=====================

¶27

W.P.(C) Nos.18508 of 2007 - C and

¶28

19530 of 2007 - Y

¶29

=============================== Dated this the 20^th day of October, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

Both the petitioners challenge the notice issued by the Village Officer, seeking surrender of properties, they obtained allegedly through valid transfers made by the original declarant in a suo motu proceeding under the Kerala Land Reforms Act,

¶32

1963 (for brevity 'Land Reforms Act).

¶33

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.18508 of 2007 obtained 1 Acre and 17.5 cents of land comprised in Survey No.463/1 of Edathirinji Village in Mukundapuram from one Sumithra Ram Mohan, the wife of the original declarant Ram Mohan. The recital in the document itself indicate that there was a proceeding pending under the Land Reforms Act before the Land Tribunal No.2, Thrissur by O.A No.1787/1976; the right to

¶34

¶35

W.P.(C) Nos.18508 of 2007 - C and 19530 of 2007 - Y

¶36

proceed with which was also granted to the petitioner.

¶37

Subsequently, even before the petitioner got himself impleaded in the O.A, the vendor of the petitioner was issued with Ext.P6 certificate. The petitioner had been in possession of the property right from 1977, ie., from the date of Ext.P1 deed. In the year 2007, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P7 notice, in which it is indicated that the property possessed by the petitioner was in fact, excess land directed to be surrendered by the original declarant, viz: Ram Mohan in T.L.B (SM) 82/MKM.

¶38

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.19530 of 2007 purchased possessory rights in 1 Acre 2 cents and 1 Acre 493/8 cents by Exts.P1 and P2 sale deeds respectively from the original declarant Ram Mohan. Exts.P3 and P4 are the conveyance of the title of the said property as such, after the said Ram Mohan obtained Purchase Certificate under the Land Reforms Act. The petitioner was also issued with a similar notice as in the other writ petition, which is produced as Exts.P8 and P9.

¶39

¶40

W.P.(C) Nos.18508 of 2007 - C and 19530 of 2007 - Y

¶41

The State has filed a counter affidavit in both the

¶42

writ petitions contending that the original declarant had in fact approached this Court with C.R.P No. 2393 of 1984 from the suo motu proceedings and had also sought for option to surrender the excess land and in such circumstance, there could be no claim raised by the subsequent purchaser. However, the contention has been raised without reference to Section 7E of the Land Reforms Act.

¶43

Section 7E of the Land Reforms Act provides notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 74 and 75 or the other provisions of the Act and any other law, that a person, who is in possession of any land at the commencement of Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2005, having extent not exceeding 4 Acres, acquired by way of purchase or otherwise on payment of consideration from any person holding land in excess of the ceiling area between the date of commencement of

¶44

the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and the date of commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act,

¶45

¶46

W.P.(C) Nos.18508 of 2007 - C and 19530 of 2007 - Y

¶47

2005, shall be deemed to be a tenant. The maximum extent as provided in Section 7E is said to be amended in 2015, but however the possession of both the petitioners would be within the limit provided under Section 7E of the Land Reforms Act, is the contention.

¶48

The petitioners obviously purchased the properties from the original declarant in the period provided under Section 7E of the Land Reforms Act and hence the petitioners cannot be evicted from the lands and the petitioners would also have a claim for fixity of tenure deeming them to be a tenant under Section 13 of the Land Reforms Act. The impugned notices are set aside. The petitioners shall approach the appropriate authority for Purchase Certificate.

¶49

The writ petition would stand allowed. No costs.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

K. VINOD CHANDRAN,

JUDGE

SB/21/10/2016

// true copy //

P.A to Judge

Mohammed Basheer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Basheer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanjiramkulam Grama Panchayat Vs State of Kerala

Kerala Agricultural University Vs T.Godwin

The Executive Committee of Kerala Agricultural University Vs G. Kunjachan

George T.P. Vs the Registrar of Births and Deaths

Rishikesan Nair v. Vs the State of Kerala

Smt.Sunitha Sahajan Vs the Adat Grama Panchayath,Puranattukara