Allowed

Yasodha v. the Additional Tahsildar

Kerala HC7 Nov 2018WP(C)/21519/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed orders refusing mutation and basic land tax, directing the Village Officer to process the application pending civil suit outcomes. The Court clarified that mutation is for fiscal purposes only and does not confer title, which remains subject to civil adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders refusing mutation and basic land tax set aside; Village Officer directed to consider mutation request based on registered sale deeds if otherwise in order.

Yasodha Vs the Additional Tahsildar — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 22897 of 2017

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MANOJ S/O ANANTHAKRISHNAN, AGED 38 YEARS, PERUVEMBA VILLAGE, PERUVEMBA.P.O, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

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

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR TALUK OFFICE,CHITTUR PALAKKAD,PIN-678101.

¶11

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PUDUNAGARAM VILLAGE,PUDUNAGARAM,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.PIN-678503.

¶12

3 THE TALUK LAND BOARD CHITTUR,PALAKKAD,PIN-678101.

¶13

4 DINESH.P.S SON OF SUNDARAN, NEAR MUKAMBIKA SCHOOL,CHANDRANAGAR,PALAKKAD-678007.

¶14

BY ADVS.

¶15

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1 TO R3, SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY FOR R4

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.11.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).21519/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).Nos. 22897 & 21519 of 2017

¶18

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶22

WEDNESDAY,THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶23

WP(C).No. 21519 of 2017

¶24

PETITIONERS:

¶25

1 YASODHA, W/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 50 YEARS, KUTTIRAM KUNNATH,PERUVEMBA AMSOM DESOM, PERUVEMBA P.O,PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY RAMAKRISHNAN,S/O. PONNUCHAMI, AGED 57 YEARS, KUTTIRAM KUNNATH, PERUVEMBA AMSOM DESOM,PERUVEMBA P.O PALAKKAD

¶26

2 BINU,W/O. SASIDHARAN, AGED 34 YEARS, VATTEKATTU KOLUMBIL, CHITTUR TALUK, THATAMANGALAM VILLAGE,PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY SASIDHARAN, S/O. KRISHNAN,AGED 43 YEARS, VATTEKATTU KOLUMBIL, CHITTUR TALUK,THATAMANGALAM VILLAGE, PALAKKAD

¶27

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

¶28

RESPONDENTS:

¶29

1 THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR, TALUK OFFICE, CHITTUR PALAKKAD, PIN – 678 101.

¶30

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,PUDUNAGARAM VILLAGE,PUDUNAGARAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN 678 503

¶31

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,PALAKKAD PIN 678 001

¶32

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

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.11.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).22897/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶35

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

¶36

W.P(C)Nos.22897 & 21519 of 2017 =============================

¶37

Dated this the 7^th day of November, 2018

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The prayers in W.P(C)No.22897/2017 are as

¶40

follows:

¶41

" i) call for the records leading to exhibit P4 and quash it issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari;

¶42

ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent effect transfer of registry of the property covered by exhibit P1 to the name of the petitioner;

¶43

iii) 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 petitoner in respect of their property covered by Ext.P1 and P2; and

¶44

iv) 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.

¶45

2. The prayers in W.P(C)No.21519/2017 are as

¶46

follows:

¶47

" i) quash exhibit P3 issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari;

¶48

ii) Isssue 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.

¶49

WP(C).Nos. 22897 & 21519 of 2017

¶50

¶51

iii) 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. "

¶52

3. Heard Sri.Jacob Sebastian, learned counsel

¶53

appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Sr.Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents 1 to 3 in these cases and Sri.Rajesh Sivaramankutty, learned counsel appearing

¶54

for contesting respondent No.4 in

¶55

W.P(C)No.22897/2017.

¶56

4. The petitioners in these two cases claim that they are absolute owners of the property concerned in these petitions and that the said property is not involved in any disputes with the government. But that the 2^nd respondent-Village Officer has refused to accept the basic land tax from the petitioners since there is a civil suit between the petitioners' vendor and his brother. That though seven long years have elapsed since the petitioners had purchased the property, they are not parties to the suit. That to the best knowledge of the petitioners, the suit does

¶57

WP(C).Nos. 22897 & 21519 of 2017

¶58

¶59

not relate to the properties in question and that there is no legal embargo in collecting basic tax and in issuing possession certificate in respect of the properties. Further it is asserted that no prohibitory orders had been issued by any competent court of law or authority interdicting the competent

¶60

revenue officials concerned from mutating the properties in favour of the petitioners or from accepting basic land tax from them etc.

¶61

5. It is in the light of these factual averments the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition with the aforementioned prayers.

¶62

6. In both these cases, the 1^st respondent has filed statements, wherein it is pointed out that the Village Officer concerned has reported that the land in question is involved in land ceiling case C.C.No.1083/1973, C.C.No.1181/1973 and that the case is still under the consideration of the Taluk Land Board, Chittur. Further that original suit as O.S.No.130/2007 is pending before the Sub Court,

¶63

WP(C).Nos. 22897 & 21519 of 2017

¶64

¶65

Palakkad and that even though the petitioners herein are not parties in the said suit and the suit has been filed challenging the prior document of the petitioners concerned, etc. It is pointed out by Sri.Rajesh Sivaramankutty, learned counsel appearing

¶66

for contesting respondent No.4 in W.P(C)No. 22897/2017 that the said suit decreed in part and that though the petitioners are not made defendants in the said suit on their predecessors-ininterest/their assignors had been arrayed as defendants in the said suit etc.

¶67

7. From the pleading and records, it appears that no competent court has so far issued any order interdicting the competent revenue officials concerned from mutating the properties in favour of the petitioners and from accepting the basic land tax. Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 clearly provides that the summary enquiry and decision thereon is only an arrangement for fiscal purposes and does not affect the legal rights of any

¶68

WP(C).Nos. 22897 & 21519 of 2017

¶69

¶70

person in respect of the lands covered by the decisions in transfer of registry cases and the question of legal rights is always subject to adjudication by the civil courts and pattas will be revised from time to time in accordance with the said judicial decisions. It has been held by this Court in various cases as Kuriakose Elias Trust v. Principal Secretary , reported in 2009(2) KHC 602, that mutation entries are only for the purpose of enabling the State to collect the Land Revenue from the person in possession and it does not confer any title to the land and that the dispute with regard to title is subject to adjudication by civil court and an order of mutation will be revised from time to time in accordance with such judicial decisions. So also it has been held in decisions as in Nevin Raju v. S.Basheer and others reported in 2015 KHC 3676 & Suraj Bhan and others v. Financial Commissioner and others reported in 2007(6) SCC 186 that payment of basic land tax or mutation in favour of the party

¶71

WP(C).Nos. 22897 & 21519 of 2017

¶72

¶73

concerned will not by itself enable them to claim any better title and it will not in any way affect the adjudication of the disputes between the parties and that mere entries in the revenue record by itself will not confer any title on the person and such entries are made only for fiscal purposes, etc.

¶74

8. In the light of these aspects, it is ordered that the impugned orders passed by the competent authorities refusing to grant mutation and to accept basic land tax, will stand set aside. The competent authority among the respondents, more particularly the 2^nd respondent-Village Officer will take necessary steps to consider the request made by the petitioner for grant of mutation in respect of the properties concerned, based on the registered sale deeds concerned and will grant such request if it is otherwise in order. Thereafter, if mutation is so granted, then basic land tax should also be accepted from the petitioners. It is made clear that the grant of mutation and acceptance of basic land tax

¶75

WP(C).Nos. 22897 & 21519 of 2017

¶76

¶77

from the petitioners by itself will not confer any right or title to the petitioners on the properties concerned and it will be subject to the decisions of the civil courts in the matter and in the land ceiling proceedings, if any, and should be revised, as envisaged in Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966.

¶78

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

¶79

Sd/-

¶80

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶81

vgd/09.11.18

¶82

WP(C).Nos. 22897 & 21519 of 2017

¶83

¶84

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22897/2017

¶85

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶86

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF REGI NUMBER 3079/2011 OF	STERED SALE DEED THE SRO,KODUVAYOOR.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED JULY 28,2010 RESPONDENT	POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOVEMBER 18,2016 IN THIS HONOURABLE COU	JUDGEMENT DATED WPC 28292/2016 OF RT
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE 22,2017 OF THE 1ST	ORDER DATED MARCH RESPONDENT.

¶87

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21519/2017

¶88

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶89

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY	OF	THE	REGISTERED SALE DEED
	NUMBER 2787/2	010	OF TH	E SRO KODUVAYOOR
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY	OF	THE	POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
	DATED JULY RESPONDENT	28,	2010	ISSUED BY THE 2ND
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY O	F TH	E ORD	ER DATED SEPTEMBER 30,
	2016 ISSUED B	Y TH	E 1ST	RESPONDENT

¶90

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

¶91

ANNEXURE R1(a)	TRUE COPY	OF THE	ORDER DATED 23.05.1980 IN
	CC NO.1033	/1973 +	TYPED COPY
ANNEXURE R1(b)	TRUE COPY REVENUE IN	OF THE SPECTOR	MAHAZAR PREPARED BY THE

¶92

WP(C).Nos. 22897 & 21519 of 2017

¶93

Yasodha v. the Additional Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yasodha v. the Additional Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.R. Sudhakaran Vs Union of India

Thomas Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

P.T. Kunhali Alias Kunhalikkutty Vs the Village Officer

Mrs. Rajeswari Devi Vs State of Kerala

B.Gopinath Vs State of Kerala

Selvin I.E. Vs the State of Kerala