Allowed

Madaswami. P v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Mar 2017WP(C)/3372/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners purchased land parcels but were denied mutation certificates, location sketches, and possession due to fragmentation claims by plantations. The Court directed Revenue Authorities to effect mutation, conduct necessary enquiries, and issue certificates within two months, provided prior applications do not bar these directives.

What did the court decide?

Direction to effect mutation of property, conduct enquiry, and issue possession certificates and location sketches within two months.

Madaswami. P Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2017/12TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 3372 of 2017 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

1. MADASWAMI. P, AGED 59 YEARS, SON OF LATE PICHAN, RESIDING AT H.NO.14/254-D, M.M.J.LAYAM, VAGAMON P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 503.

¶8

2. GANAPATHY. K, AGED 60 YEARS, SON OF LATE KARUPPASWAMI, RESIDING AT “VANISH BHAVAN”, OLD MARKET, VAGAMON P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 503.

¶9

3. POULY SAJU, AGED 45 YEARS, WIFE OF SHRI SAJU, RESIDING AT “KANATTU HOUSE”, ANCHIRI P.O., ALAKODE VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 585.

¶10

BY SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADV. SMT.P.J.RAZIA BEEVI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶12

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

¶13

2. THE TAHSILDAR, PEERUMED TALUK, PEERMADE-685 531.

¶14

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAGAMON VILLAGE, VAGAMON P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 503.

¶15

4. THE ELAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT OFFICE, ELAPPARA P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 501.

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA R4 BY ADVS. SRI.G.HARIHARAN

¶17

SRI.SHINE VARGHESE SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-03-2017, ALONG WITH W.P(C).NO. 20302 OF 2016 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Msd.

¶20

WP(C).No. 3372 of 2017 (V)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶23

EXHIBIT P1: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.3402/2007/I DATED 19.12.2007 OF S.R.O. PEERUMED RELATING TO THE FIRST PETITIONER.

¶24

EXHIBIT P1(A): A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.802696 (BOOK NO.455) DATED 07.01.2008 ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P1(B): A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.2923935 (BOOK NO.29240) DATED 20.03.2012 ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P1(C): A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.3817843 (BOOK NO.266) DATED 28.01.2010 ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT P2: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO:2646/2007 DATED 28.09.2007 OF S.R.O., PEERUMED RELATING TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶28

EXHIBIT P2(A): A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.2887087 (BOOK NO.275) DATED 29.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶29

EXHIBIT P3: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.1801/2008 DATED 15.05.2008 OF S.R.O. PEERUMED RELATING TO THE THIRD PETITIONER.

¶30

EXHIBIT P4: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.01.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXHIBIT P4(A): A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28.09.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

¶32

EXHIBIT P4(B): A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22.12.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

¶33

EXHIBIT P5: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.26/17 DATED 11.01.2017, ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER.

¶34

EXHIBIT P5(A): A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.715/16 DATED 28.10.2016, ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶35

EXHIBIT P5(B): A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO.818/16 DATED 22.12.2016, ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.

¶36

WP(C).No. 3372 of 2017 (V)

¶37

EXHIBIT P6: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 13.02.2015 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.4803 OF 2014 (A).

¶38

EXHIBIT P7: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 19.11.2015 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.33235 OF 2015.

¶39

EXHIBIT P8: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 29.4.2016 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.16295 OF 2016 (J).

¶40

EXHIBIT P9: A PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 14.06.2016 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.20302 OF 2016 (K).

¶41

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶47

W.P.(C). Nos.20302 & 38616 of 2016 and W.P.(C). Nos.3372 & 5554 of 2017.

¶48

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 3^rd day of March, 2017

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of the inaction on the part of respondents 2 and 3 to issue possession certificates, location sketch and carrying out mutation of the properties of the petitioners. Separate narration of facts are not required.

¶51

Petitioners have purchased different parcels of land in Vagamon Village in Peerumed Taluk of Idukki District by executing and registering sale deeds before the office of the Sub Registrar, Peerumed during the year 2007 onwards. Petitioners have submitted applications for effecting mutation of the property and for securing possession certificate and location sketch, which were either declined or refused to be granted on the ground that, properties purchased by the petitioners are fragmented from large estates held by M/s.MMJ plantations, who have secured benefits under the provisions of Kerala Land Reforms Act on the ground of plantation. Therefore, as per the

¶52

¶53

Circular issued by the Land Board Secretary, the possession certificate and location sketch cannot be issued and the mutation also cannot be done.

¶54

The said issue was considered by this court in its various judgments and held that the reliefs sought for by the petitioners can be granted subject to any enquiry conducted or any proceedings initiated on the basis of the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and the issue of certificates will be subject to the result of any enquiry or proceedings pending.

¶55

In my considered opinion, petitioners are also entitled to get the benefit of the judgments rendered by this court in W.P.(C).31477/2011 and connected cases dated 13.2.2015 and other subsequent judgments rendered by this court in various writ petitions. Moreover, it is the well settled proposition in law that, mutation of property is effected for fiscal purposes. Tax is also received for the fiscal purpose. The location sketch and the occupancy certificates are issued by the Revenue Authorities in accordance with the possession held by the respective petitioners. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the petitioners in the writ petitions are entitled to get the reliefs sought for in

¶56

¶57

the writ petition.

¶58

Accordingly there will be a direction to the competent among respondents to effect mutation of the property of the petitioners after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or any other interested or affected persons within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Revenue Authorities are also directed to carry out necessary enquiry and issue possession as well as location sketch in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The consideration of any application submitted by the petitioners and rejection in an earlier proceedings should not stand in the way of carrying out the directives contained above. I also make it clear that, the directives to be implemented as per the direction of this court will be guided by any action initiated by the statutory authorities in accordance with law and in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963.

¶59

Writ petition is allowed accordingly.

¶60

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶61

smv

Madaswami. P v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madaswami. P 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janardana Kurup.N. Vs Kerala State Housing Board

Muralidharan Pillai Vs District Collector, Kollam

A.K.Abdulkhader Vs the Muvattupuzha-Kothamangalam Primary

Subhashkumar Vs Director, Director of Social Justice

Jonica.J Vs Kerala State Handicaped Persons Welfare Corporation

K.P.Alias Vs State of Kerala