Partly allowed

Sreenivasan v. the Tahsildar

Kerala HC20 Dec 2018WP(C)/14490/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking mandamus for tax acceptance and possession certificate, the Kerala High Court ordered the Revenue officials to accept basic land tax forthwith. The Court allowed the officials to conduct a survey to verify the property's location relative to a disputed survey number, with directions to complete the process within two months.

What did the court decide?

Grant of liberty to accept basic land tax forthwith; order to conduct survey within 2 months to verify property location; mutation and possession certificate application to be considered post-survey,

Sreenivasan Vs the Tahsildar — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 14490 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 SREENIVASAN

¶8

S/O. SIVANANDAN, AGED 52 YEARS, SREENI NIVAS, PARUTHIKAVU, THATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD.

¶9

2 AMBILI

¶10

D/O. CHANDRAN, KANDANKULANGARA HOUSE, NELLIPADAM, VALLANGI VILLAGE, NENMARA, PALAKKAD.

¶11

3 SHARMA

¶12

S/O. MAHALINGABATT, VIJAYALAKSHMI, KARALATHERUVU, PALAKKAD.

¶13

4 SIVAHARI S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, KRISHNAKRIPA, PUTHUNAGARAM, NENMARA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD.

¶14

5 HAJIRA

¶15

W/O. IBRAHIM, 16/173, NEHRU COLONY, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶16

BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SMT.ANU JACOB SRI.K.V.WINSTON

¶17

RESPONDENT/S:

¶18

1 THE TAHSILDAR PALAKKAD, TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶19

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MARUTHARODE VILLAGE, MARUTHARODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 007.

¶20

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 001.

¶21

4 K.P. JANARDHANAN S/O. GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, KAREKKAD, PUTHENVEETIL, KAVASSERY, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 706.

¶22

OTHER PRESENT:

¶23

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1 TO R3

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(C).No. 14490 of 2018

¶28

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

¶29

Dated this the 20^th day of December, 2018

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

¶32

“i) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to collect basic tax and issue a possession certificate to the petitioners in respect of their property covered by Ext. P1.

¶33

ii) Issue such other writ, order or direction is this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

¶34

Heard Sri.Jacob Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for

¶35

the petitioners and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3. Though notice has been duly served on R-4 there is no appearance for that party.

¶36

The petitioners would state that they have jointly purchased property coming to an extent of 128 cents in Sy.No. 73/7, block No.38 (old Sy.No. 6/4 TP 1019) on the basis of Ext.P-1 registered sale deed No.2468/2005 of SRO, Palakkad. The petitioners would assert that the said property is not involved in any proceedings

¶37

with the Governmental authorities including the land ceiling proceedings on file the Taluk Land Board concerned or any civil litigative proceedings and that on the basis of Ext.P-1 registered deed

¶38

W.P.(C).14490/18 - : 4 :-

¶39

they are in absolute ownership of the abovesaid property coming to 128 cents. The complaint of the petitioners is that respondents 1 and 2 have refused to grant mutation and transfer of registry in respect of the said property in favour of the petitioners and also have not accepted basic land tax from the petitioners in respect of the abovesaid property. That the petitioners could reliably learn from the office of the 2^nd respondent that there is a dispute pending before the Land Tribunal Palakkad in O.A.No. 277/1975 and that to the best of the knowledge of the petitioners the dispute raised in that O.A. is not in any manner related to the property covered by Ext.P-1 and that no legal embargo is attracted to collect basic land tax from the petitioners and issuance of possession certificate to the petitioners, etc. The petitioners would place reliance on Ext.P-2 judgment dated 14.1.2016 rendered by this Court in W.P.(C).No. 33720/2015 and Ext.P-3 judgment dated 14.7.2016 in W.P.(C).No. 22115/2016 and connected cases. It is pointed out by the petitioners that in Exts.P2 and P-3 judgments, this Court has already directed the respondent Revenue officials concerned to accept basic land tax from those petitioners, whose lands are also in old Sy.No. 6/4, whose properties are also in block No.38.

¶40

The 2^nd respondent has now filed a statement dated

¶41

W.P.(C).14490/18 - : 5 :-

¶42

November, 2018, and paragraphs 3 to 7 of the said statement read as follows:

¶43

“3. As per the Basic Tax Register, the land comprised in Old Sy. Nos. 6/4, 6/5, 4/3, 4/1, 10/3, 2C, 4/2C in Block No.38 with an extent of 0.6455 Hectare in Marutharoad Village in Palakkad was in the name of Kurisammal, W/o. Anthonimuthu, Rajammal, Sandhyavu and Thomas as per Certificate of Purchase dated 19/09/1977 issued in S.M. No. 277/1975 of the Special Tahsildar, Land Tribunal, Palakkad.

¶44

4. The land comprised in Old Sy. No. 6/4, 6/5, 4/3, 4/1 and 10/3 for an extent of 6.73 Acre are denoted in S.M. No.277/1975. The 5^th petitioner has obtained a Certificate of Purchase for the 88 cents of land comprised in Old Sy. No.6/5 dated 25/01/1977, issued in S.M. No. 10388/1996 of the Tahsildar, Land Tribunal, Palakkad. It is submitted that the very same land lying in Old Sy. No.6/5 of Block 38 in Marutharoad Village was included in two certificates of Purchase simultaneously, ie, S.M. No.277/1975 and S.M. No.10388/1996, issued by the Land Tribunal, Palakkad and many litigations came up before this Hon'ble Court.

¶45

5. The Appellate Authority (LR), Thrissur who heard the matter in AA No.27/2003, as per it's Order dated 20/04/2012 remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal, Palakkad for fresh disposal. Examining the matter in detail, the Hon'ble Court, in its judgment in CRP (LR) No.288/2012, dated 16/07/2012, declined to interfere with the order of the Appellate Authority to rectify the error happened on the part of the Land Tribunal in respect of 88 cent in Old Sy. No.6/5 of Block-38 of the Marutharoad Village and to deem who exactly was the cultivating tenant of the land and what was the total extent of the land comprised in Old Sy. No.6/5.

¶46

6. Subsequently, a few holders of the adjoining lands holding their property in Old Sy. No. 4/1, 4/3, 10/3, 4/2C, 6/4 also approached this Hon'ble Court in similar situations claiming their right of payment of Land Tax. This Hon'ble Court ordered in WP(C) No.33720/2015, dated 14/01/2016, to accept Land Tax from all the petitioners except from those who hold land in the disputed Old Sy. No.6/5. Thereafter a series of judgments came from this Hon'ble Court directing the respondent to allow the petitioners for remittance of basic tax for their holdings only sparing the land in Old Sy. No.6/5 for the final adjudication of the Land Tribunal, Palakkad.

¶47

7. The petitioners claim that the disputed property does not relate to the property they have purchased. The adjacent property (Block 38, Re. Sy. No.73/7 Old 6/5 of Block 38) in Marutharoad Village is included in two certificates of Purchase simultaneously, ie, S.M. No.277/1975 and S.M. No.10388/1996, issued by the Land Tribunal, Palakkad. Since the land extent in resurvey No.73/7 is 1.0360 Hectare, before issuing Tax and possession of the 128 cents of land to the petitioners; the document registered by the petitioners has to be

¶48

W.P.(C).14490/18 - : 6 :-

¶49

examined and field verification with old sketch with the help of Taluk Surveyor is highly necessary to identify and to demarcate the land. If the entire 128 cents of land as claimed by the petitioners belongs to Old Sy. No.6/4 in TP 1019, there is no hindrance in accepting tax and issuing possession certificate to the petitioners from the respondent's office.”

¶50

The learned Government Pleader has submitted that he

¶51

has received instructions that there have been serious disputes in respect of the properties in old Sy.No.6/5, which is also lying in block No.38 and that it was found that for a total extent of about 1.036 Hectares it was later discovered that 2 separate purchase certificates have been issued in respect of the said property and further that this Court has also taken cognizance of that issue raised by the respondents as can be seen from para 3 of Ext.P-2 judgment and that this Court had given directions in Ext.P-2 judgment only in respect of properties which do not come within old Sy.No. 6/5. Hence it is submitted by the learned Senior Govt. Pleader that this Court may grant liberty to the official respondents to ascertain the factual issue by conducting survey and measurement of the property as to whether the petitioners' property covered by Ext.P-1 sale deed is actually lying in old Sy.No. 6/5 of block no.38 even though the said deed recites that the property is in old Sy.No. 6/4, etc.

¶52

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly Exts.P2 and P-3 judgment and also taking note of the fact that the recitals in Ext.P-1 registered sale deed show that the

¶53

W.P.(C).14490/18 - : 7 :-

¶54

property of the petitioners is in old Sy.No. 6/4, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the request of the petitioners for acceptance of basic land tax could be granted for the time being subject to any further action that may be taken by the official respondents in case later they could ascertain that the property in Ext.P-1 sale deed is actually lying in old Sy.No. 6/5 and not in old Sy.No. 6/4, etc. It is pointed out by Sri.Jacob Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that it appears that the property in question covered by Ext.P-1 was earlier mutated in favour of the said previous title holder and basic land tax has also been accepted from him inasmuch as it is clearly recited in Ext.P-1 deed that the thandapper account No. allotted to that previous owner is TP 1019 as can be seen from the internal page No.5 of Ext.P-1 sale deed and if that be so, the previous title holder is the registered land holder of the said property inasmuch as the basic land tax has also been accepted and possession certificate has also been issued. Since that is the position the prior title holder is the registered land holder of the land in question as understood in Sec. 3(3)(d) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, and where registered land holder assigns and alienates the property to third parties like the petitioners, then such assignee/s will stand in the shoe of the “ land holder ” as understood in Sec. 3(3)(d) of the

¶55

W.P.(C).14490/18 - : 8 :-

¶56

abovesaid Act. In such a situation, going by the mandate of Sec. 5(2) the competent revenue officials concerned are bound to accept basic land tax from such registered land holders as understood in Sec. 3(3) (d) as otherwise it will amount to abdication of statutory duties and obligations and hence it can be seen that the land tax is to be accepted from the petitioners in view of the impact of Sec. 3(3)(d) read with Sec. 5(2) of the Kerala Land Tax Act. Hence the 3^rd respondent Village Officer will forthwith accept basic land tax from the petitioners for the unpaid period and issue receipt in that regard. However, this is without prejudice to the right of the official respondents to conduct survey and measurement of the property covered by Ext.P-1 so as to ascertain whether the said property is actually lying in old Sy.No. 6/5 for which some disputes are stated to be pending or whether it is actually lying in old Sy.No. 6/4. Such survey and measurement of the property should be conducted by the official respondents only with prior notice to the petitioners and on the basis of the title deeds, old survey records, resurvey records and any other relevant materials, etc. Petitioners' application for mutation and request of grant of possession certificate, location sketch, etc. may be considered after completion of such process.

¶57

Steps in that regard should be duly completed by the official respondents, more particularly respondents 1 and 2, with the

¶58

W.P.(C).14490/18 - : 9 :-

¶59

aid of the competent taluk surveyor concerned without much delay, preferably within a period of 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the petitioners' application for mutation should also duly considered in accordance with law and necessary decision may be rendered thereon. The request of the petitioners for grant of possession certificate and location sketch, etc. should also be duly considered, after the abovesaid process is over. However, it is made clear that in case the official respondents do not complete the abovesaid exercise in the abovesaid time limit, then the petitioners' request for grant of mutation, issuance of possession certificate, location sketch, etc. should be acceded to without any further delay, but of course without prejudice to rights of the respondents to initiate any lawful proceedings as against their property in question, but subject to strict adherence to the due procedure.

¶60

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶61

sdk+

¶62

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶63

W.P.(C).14490/18 - : 10 :-

¶64

APPENDIX

¶65

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶66

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE	COPY OF THE SALE DEED 2468/2005 OF THE
	SRO PAL	AKKAD.

¶67

EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF	THE JUDGMENT DATED JANUARY 14,
	2016 IN W.P.C	33720/2015 OF THIS HONOURABLE
	COURT.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF	THE JUDGMENT DATED JULY 14, 2016
	IN W.P.C 22115/	2016 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

Sreenivasan v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreenivasan v. the Tahsildar

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

K.v.Gopi Vs State of Kerala

V.J.Wilson Vs the Coir Inspector, Office of the Coir Inspector

N.Mohanan Vs National Highways Authority of India

Biju Abraham Vs the Village Officer

N.v.John Vs Tahasildar

R.Babu Rajan Vs State of Kerala