Allowed

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

Kerala HC19 Dec 2018WP(C)/22663/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that disputes between a co-operative society and government officials regarding sale clearances or financial liabilities cannot justify the denial or delay of a registered purchaser's right to mutation and basic land tax acceptance. The Village Officer was directed to process the petitioner's application. Discrepancies in sale procedures are matters for departmental action, not a ba

What did the court decide?

The impugned order refusing mutation and basic land tax acceptance was set aside. The petition was remitted to the 4th respondent Village Officer for consideration with a direction to grant the reques

V.J.Wilson Vs the Coir Inspector, Office of the Coir Inspector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 22663 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

V.J.WILSON

¶8

VELIKKAKATH HOUSE, P.O EZHUPUNNA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE COIR INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE COIR INSPECTOR OFFICE OF THE COIR INSPECTOR, THURAVOOR, CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688532.

¶12

2 THE PROJECT OFFICER OFFICE OF THE COIR PROJECT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688001.

¶13

3 THE SUB REGISTRY OFFICE KUTHIATHODU, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA,REPRESENTED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR.

¶14

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EZHUPUNNA VILLAGE OFFICE, ERAMALLOOR PO, ALAPPUZHA-688537.

¶15

5 THE DIRECTOR OF COIR

¶16

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF COIR, COIR BHAVAN,NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶21

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

¶22

W.P.(C).No. 22663 of 2018

¶23

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

¶24

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2018 J U D G M E N T

¶25

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

¶26

“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or other writ order or direction directing the Village Officer, Ezhupunna Village Office, to effect necessary endorsement in the transfer of registry/revenue record changing the ownership of the petitioner as registered title holder relating to the property purchased by the petitioner.

¶27

ii. Issue such other reliefs which may be deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the above Writ Petition.”

¶28

Heard Sri.P.P.Jacob, learned counsel appearing for the

¶29

petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶30

It is stated that the Ezhupunna North Coir Vyavasaya Co-operative Society had invited quotation for sale of property owned by them, which is situated in Sy.No.252/4 of Ezhupunna Village, Cherthala taluk, Alappuzha Revenue District. That the petitioner had submitted his bids in the said sale proceedings and had become the highest bidder. That the co-operative society concerned had obtained all permissions from the Government as well as the Department concerned for sale of property. That a liability of Rs. 1,75,000/- is owed by the said co-operative society to the Government. According to the petitioner, the said liability amount of Rs.1,75,000/- has already been duly cleared by the co-operative society to the

¶31

W.P.(C).No.22663/18 - : 3 :-

¶32

Governmental authorities concerned, as evident from Ext.P-9 chalan receipt. According to the petitioner, the sale of the said landed

¶33

property has been duly confirmed in favour of the petitioner and sale deed has also been executed by the co-operative society and that the petitioner has paid the full consideration thereof and the said sale deed duly registered with the sub registrar's office, Cherthala, on 6.1.2018 and the sale deed has been numbered as 39/2018 of SRO, Kuthiyathodu dated 6.12.2018 as discernible from Ext.P-11.

¶34

The complaint of the petitioner is that when he had presented his application for grant of mutation and for acceptance of basic land tax in respect of the said property before the 4^th respondent Village Officer, Ezhupunna, the said official has taken the stand as per Ext.P-11 letter dated 19.6.2018 that since the sale proceedings have been concluded by the co-operative society without the due approval of the 5^th respondent Director of Coir, the request for mutation cannot be acted upon in the instant case, etc.

¶35

The 2^nd respondent (Project Officer, Coir, Alappuzha) has filed a statement dated 23.10.2018, wherein it is admitted that the co-operative society had remitted the liability amount of Rs. 1,75,000/- to the Government as is referred to in Ext.P-9 chalan receipt. But it is stated therein that the co-operative society is still

¶36

W.P.(C).No.22663/18 - : 4 :-

¶37

liable to an amount of Rs.2,75,000/- with interest to the Government. That may be so. Assuming that the said factual assertion is correct, the said aspect cannot be the ground for penalising the petitioner so as to delay the consideration of his request for mutation. If at all the co-operative society concerned has any further liability to be cleared to the Government, it is for the Governmental authorities concerned to take necessary steps in that regard to recover such liability amount, if any, from the said co-operative society in accordance with law and after due notice to that society, etc. So the alleged non-payment of Rs. 2,75,000/- by the co-operative society to the Government cannot be the legal basis for refusing or delaying the request of the petitioner for grant of mutation and for acceptance of land tax.

¶38

The 2^nd respondent has also stated certain other factual averments in the said statement in his endeavour to establish that all procedural formalities for getting permission of the department have not been fulfilled by the co-operative society before the sale was concluded. Some averments are made about the survey no. of the property, which was shown in the notification published in the newspapers, etc.

¶39

Per contra, the petitioner would contend that the said

¶40

W.P.(C).No.22663/18 - : 5 :-

¶41

discrepancy, if any, was actually duly cured by the co-operative society by Ext.P-7 and that the discrepancy in the sub division of the property as shown in the newspapers publication has of no material consequence inasmuch as the fair value of the property with reference to the main Sy.No. is the same irrespective as to its sub division number.

¶42

This Court need not get entangled with the resolution of such disputes for the simple reason that those aspects, which are issues between the co-operative society concerned and the Governmental authorities/Departmental authorities concerned, cannot be the legal basis for denying or delaying the consideration of the request of the petitioner for mutation and acceptance of basic land tax in respect of the property covered by the registered sale deed executed in his favour..

¶43

There does not seem to be any major dispute that the cooperative society concerned was the previous owner and title holder

¶44

of the property in question and that the property was mutated in favour of the said society and basic land tax was also being accepted from the society. If that be so, the co-operative society is the registered land holder of the said property covered by the registered sale deed, as understood in Sec. 3(3)(d) of the Kerala Land Tax Act,

¶45

W.P.(C).No.22663/18 - : 6 :-

¶46

It is also not in dispute that the sub registrar concerned has duly registered the sale deed executed by the co-operative society in favour of the petitioner as aforestated. Therefore, there cannot be any shadow of doubt that in the eye of law the petitioner is the assingee of the said property, as the property in question has already been assigned by the registered land holder in favour of the petitioner. Going by the statutory impact of clause (d) of Sec. 3(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, as applied to the facts of this case, the petitioner is the assignee of the registered land holder. Going by the impact of clause (d) Sec. 3(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, the assignee of the registered land holder will be the “ land holder ”, as understood in that provision. In such a situation, where the registered land holder alienates and assigns his property or he dies without any such alienation, then the assignee or the legal representative as the case may be, will be the “ land holder ” as understood in Sec. 3(3)(d), going by the definition of

¶47

“ land holder ” in that section. “ Land holder ” has been defined in Sec. 3(3) of the Land Tax Act, 1961, which reads as follows:

¶48

“Sec.3(3): “Land holder” means,-

¶49

(a) in relation to any land held by a cultivating tenant as defined in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964), such cultivating tenant;

¶50

(b) in relation to nay land in the possession of a kanam tenant as defined in the Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955 (XXIV of 1955), such kanam tenant;

¶51

W.P.(C).No.22663/18 - : 7 :-

¶52

(c) in relation to any land which has not been surveyed and is not held by a cultivating tenant referred to in sub-clause (a), the proprietor of such land;

¶53

(d) in relation to any other land, the registered holder for the time being of such land, and includes his legal representatives and assigns and nay person who under any law for the time being in force is liable for the payment of public revenue due in respect of the land held by him.”

¶54

Sec. 5 of the Kerala land Tax Act deals with charge on land tax. Sec. 5(2) thereof mandates that basic land tax shall be charged on the land concerned and it shall be collected by the revenue officials concerned from such land holder, as understood in Sec.3(3). Therefore, it is the bounden statutory obligation of the competent revenue officials concerned like 4^th respondent Village Officer to ensure that land tax is accepted and collected from the land holder going by the statutory mandate of Sec. 3(3)(d) read with Sec. 5(2) of the Act. Sec.4 mandates that the revenue settlement provided as per the said Act shall be deemed to be the general revenue settlement of the State. Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972 framed under the abovesaid Act envisages that basic land tax register (BTR) shall be maintained by all taluk offices and village offices. So in a case where the land tax is collected by the competent revenue officials concerned from the land holder as understood in Sec. 3(3)(d) of the Act, ie, from the assignee of the registered land holder, as understood in Sec. 3(3), then it is also the bounden duty of the said

¶55

W.P.(C).No.22663/18 - : 8 :-

¶56

competent revenue officials concerned to ensure that additional entries are made in the basic land tax register to show the name of the said assingee as the new registered land holder in the place of the erstwhile registered land holder, who has already conveyed and assigned his property, as envisaged in Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972. This is the simple and precise impact of the statutory provision flowing out from the Kerala Land Act and the rules framed thereunder. Therefore, the 4^th respondent cannot abdicate his responsibility to take action on the request of the petitioner for mutation and transfer of registry and acceptance of basic land tax on the ground that the Departmental officers concerned had informed that there are some flaws in the sale proceedings conducted by the co-operative society concerned, which resulted in the sale deed. It has been held by the Apex Court and various High Courts including this Court, that pendency of revenue recovery attachment proceedings, etc. will not be the legal justification for denying the request for mutation and transfer of registry. The core of the matter is that it is adumbrated in Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, that the summary enquiry conducted by the officers concerned for effecting mutation and transfer of registry is only for fiscal purposes and there is no bearing whatsoever to the title and it has to be independently decided by the

¶57

W.P.(C).No.22663/18 - : 9 :-

¶58

civil court and mutation of records will have be revised from time to time pursuant to any such judicial decision. In the result it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P-11 order dated 19.6.2018 will stand set aside. The request of the petitioner for mutation, transfer of registry and for acceptance of basic land tax will stand remitted to the 4^th respondent Village Officer for consideration, who will after affording an reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, will grant the said request, if it is otherwise in order. Orders in this regard will be duly rendered by the 4^th respondent Village Officer without much delay, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. However, these findings are without prejudice to any proceedings that may be lawfully contemplated and initiated by the Departmental authorities concerned in respect of the alleged additional liability owed by the above co-operative society to the Department and in respect of the alleged deficiencies in the sale proceedings, if such proceedings are otherwise fully justified and warranted in facts and law, and provided the rigourous due procedure in that regard is strictly adhered to.

¶59

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

¶60

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶61

sdk+

¶62

W.P.(C).No.22663/18 - : 10 :-

¶63

APPENDIX

¶64

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶65

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFIC	ATE
	DATED 23.11.2015 ISSUED FROM THE SUB REGIS OFFICE, KUTHIATHODU.	TRY
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.8.2 ISSUED BY TEH SECOND RESPONDENT TO ADVOCATE GOPAKUMAR.	017 T.P
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE PHOTOCOPY LETTER DATED 1.11.2017 ISSUED THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY OF EZHUPUNNA CVCS LTD NO.487.	BY THE
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.5 DA 5.12.2017 OF THE SOCIETY.	TED
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED TO FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 11.12.2017.	THE
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 19.12.2017.	THE
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 28.12.2017 TO THE SEC RESPONDENT.	THE OND
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT WP(C)2929/2018 DATED 21.2.2018.	IN
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHELAN SHOWING REMITTANCE AND AMOUNT OF RS.1,75,OOO/-	THE
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.3.2 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF COIR TO THE VILL OFFICER, EZHUPUNNA VILLAGE OFFICE.	018 AGE
EXHIBIT P11 EXHIBIT P12	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDING ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICE, EZHUPUNNA DATED 19.6.2018. COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD.2.6.15 OF SOCIETY.	THE THE
EXHIBIT P13	COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD.25.10.2014 OF GENERAL BODY OF THE SOCIETY.	THE
EXHIBIT P14	COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE PROJECT OFFICER THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY DTD.24.11.15.	TO

¶66

W.P.(C).No.22663/18 - : 11 :-

¶67

EXHIBIT P15 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY TO THE TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA DTD. 19.12.15.

¶68

EXHIBIT P16 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PROJECT OFFICER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY DTD. 22.3.18. EXHIBIT P17 COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY TO THE PROJECT OFFICER DTD. 28.3.2018.

¶69

RESPONDENTS

¶70

EXHIBITS

¶71

R2A COPY OF THE FAIR VALUE CERTIFICATE DTD. 27.1.2016. R2B COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION DTD.11.11.2017. R2C. COPY OF THE LETTER.

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Vasanthakumari Vs District Collector

Meera, Vs Land Tribunal

Thaikandiputhiyapurayil Fathima Vs the Secretary

K.v.Gopi Vs State of Kerala

N.Mohanan Vs National Highways Authority of India

Jose.B.J, Vs the Sub-Registrar