Dismissed

Faseela @ Molly Basheer v. District Collector

Kerala HC30 Nov 2018WP(C)/4913/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court upheld the cancellation of land mutation for petitioners who purchased property after revenue recovery proceedings began, deeming it lawful under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. It denied extension of an exemption granted to a third party and directed the District Collector to facilitate settlement against remittance of 1.5 lakhs each.

What did the court decide?

Cancellations upheld; Directors to refer to Welfare Board if Rs. 1.5 lakhs remitted by each petitioner within one month.

Faseela @ Molly Basheer Vs District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 5072 of 2014

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 V.S SHEMI

¶8

AGED 27 YEARS, W/O.SHANAVAS, BIZEE MANZIL, KARAPPUZHA KARA, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2 SHANAVAS

¶10

AGED 35 YEARS

¶11

S/O.KARIM, BIZEE MANZIL, KARAPPUZHA KARA, KOTTAYAM

¶12

VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER

¶14

SRI. E.S ASHRAF

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶17

COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶18

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

¶19

OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶20

3 THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR

¶21

KOTTAYAM - 686 003.

¶22

4 THE TAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶23

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶24

6 C.K.SHANI S/O.HUZAIN, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, VELOOR P.O., KARAPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 008.

¶25

BY ADVS.

¶26

GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶27

SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP

¶28

WP(C)5072/2014 ,WP(C)4913/2014 2

¶29

SRI. SUNIL KURIAKOSE SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.11.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C).4913/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

WP(C)5072/2014 ,WP(C)4913/2014 3

¶32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶35

FRIDAY ,THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶36

WP(C).No. 4913 of 2014

¶37

PETITIONER:

¶38

FASEELA @ MOLLY BASHEER AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.BASHEER AHMED, SHEBEENA BILLA, KARAPPUZHA KARA, KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶39

BY ADV. SRI.ESM.KABEER

¶40

RESPONDENTS:

¶41

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶42

COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM 686 001.

¶43

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

¶44

OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM 686 001.

¶45

3 THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR KOTTAYAM 686 003.

¶46

4 THE TAHSILDAR REVENUE RECOVERY, KOTTAYAM 686 001.

¶47

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM 686 001.

¶48

6 C.K.SHANI S/O.HUZAIN, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, VELOOR P.O, KARAPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, 686 008.

¶49

BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶50

WP(C)5072/2014 ,WP(C)4913/2014 4

¶51

SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.SUNIL KURIAKOSE

¶52

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON .., ALONG WITH WP(C).5072/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶53

WP(C)5072/2014 ,WP(C)4913/2014 5

¶54

JUDGMENT

¶55

[ WP(C) 5072/2014 ,WP(C).4913/2014 ]

¶56

In both these writ petitions the orders

¶57

passed by the Tahasildar and District Collector in appeal are under challenge. The mutation in respect of petitioners' properties have been

¶58

canceled on the ground that property was purchased after Revenue Recovery Proceedings were initiated

¶59

against the vendor, in order to defeat the

¶60

proceedings.

¶61

In writ petition 4913 of 2014, petitioner had purchased an extent of 04.04 Ares(10 cents) of

¶62

property in Re-Survey.No.56/8, as per Sale deed 1175/2006 on 06.04.2006. Mutation in respect of that property was effected and petitioner had been

¶63

paying tax on it. While so, he received a show cause notice proposing cancellation of mutation on the ground that the property was purchased after

¶64

arrears to Toddy Workers Welfare fund scheme became due and proceedings for revenue recovery

¶65

WP(C)5072/2014 ,WP(C)4913/2014 6

¶66

were initiated. Petitioner filed his objection and thereafter Ext.P4 order was passed canceling the mutation. Appeal filed against Ext.P4 order, was rejected.

¶67

Similarly, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.

¶68

5072 of 2014, also purchased 04.04 ares of property in Re.Survey No.56/27 from 56/8 and 1.25 ares of property comprised in Re-survey No.8/1 of Kottayam village as per Sale deed No.1174/2006 on 01.04.2006 (Ext P1 in that case). Mutation was also effected on that. They purchased the property from the 6^th respondent, at a time when revenue recovery proceedings were already initiated. They also received similar show cause notice for cancellation of mutation and thereafter mutation

¶69

was canceled by a common order in both these cases. The appeal was also disposed of by a common order. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the orders issued by the Tahasildar canceling mutation and the order passed by the District Collector rejecting their appeals.

¶70

¶71

The respondents have filed a counter

¶72

affidavit stating that the 6^th respondent initiated proceedings against the property for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,28,469/- towards the arrears due from her to the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Scheme for the years 2002-2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 respectively. On requisition received by the District Collector, notices were issued under Sections 7 and 34 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act to the 6th respondent on 04.10.2002 in respect of the arrears due from 2002-2003, on 23.07.2003 for the year 2003-2004, on 27.05.2004 for the year 2004-2005, on 25.05.2005 for the year 2005-2006 and on 29.04.2006 for the year 2006-2007. Therefore, it was stated that the 6^th respondent had willfully transferred an extent of 40.47 Ares of landed property(Wet land) owned by him in Nattakom Village to persons including the petitioners. It is stated that he had transferred property to Mr. M.D Baiju S/o Damodaran, also subsequent to the initiation of revenue recovery proceedings in

¶73

¶74

order to escape from the payment. It is stated that transfer of Registry was canceled in accordance with the provisions contained under section 44 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery act.

¶75

The petitioners have raised a contention that the property alienated to Mr.M.D Baiju has been exempted by the Commissioner of Land Revenue. In the Counter Affidavit, it is stated that Mr. M.D Baiju had approached the Commissioner of Land Revenue with a revision petition and the commissioner of Land Revenue passed order dated 16.07.2012 exempting him and directing to proceed against other properties transferred by the 6^th respondent. Therefore, the property transferred to M.D Baiju is not proceeded against.

¶76

Even though, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the benefit granted to Mr. M.D Baiju should be extended to petitioner also and therefore the orders passed against the mutation effected in respect of their properties are to be restored or that his property also should be proceeded against, I find that the

¶77

¶78

cancellation of mutation is done perfectly in accordance with law. The benefit of orders passed in the case of Sri. Baiju, contrary to law, cannot

¶79

be extended to petitioners. As the benefits

¶80

granted to him are not challenged in this writ petition and Mr. M.D Baiju is not made a party to

¶81

this writ petition, it is not proper for this Court to interfere with the findings of the

¶82

Commissioner for Land Revenue, made in favour of Sri. Baiju. It is seen that the proceedings for cancellation of mutation have been effected in accordance with Section 44 of the Land Revenue Recovery Act and the transfer of the properties in favour of petitioners has been effected after initiation of Revenue Recovery proceedings. The

¶83

orders impugned do not suffer any illegality.

¶84

However, there shall be a direction to

¶85

the District Collector to refer the matters to the

¶86

Toddy Workers Welfare Board, for settlement provided the petitioners in each of the cases

¶87

remit a sum of of 1.5 lakhs each to the Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board and produce the receipt

¶88

¶89

before the District Collector, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment The writ petitions are disposed with the above directions.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA

JUDGE

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5072/2014

¶95

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶96

EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1174/2006. EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 22.04.2013. EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.3975/2013. EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT. EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN E3-10827/2012 DATED 26.06.2013. EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO.4027/2013 DATED 11.07.2013. EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.26340/2013. EXHIBIT P9 EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M.4027/13/K.DIS DATED 08.01.2014. EXHIBIT P10 EXHIBIT P10. TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 02.02.2014.

¶97

¶98

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4913/2014

¶99

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶100

EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1175/2006. EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 16.12.11. EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH SRI.SHANAVAS AND SMT. SHEMI DATED 04.01.13. EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE ORDER IN E310827/2012 DATED 26.02.2013. EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P5. COPY OF THE APPEAL NO.4027/2013 DATED 11.07.2013. EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P6. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.26328/2013. EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P7. COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M.4027/13/K.DIS DATED 8.1.14 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT RDO. EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P8. COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 02.02.2014.

¶101

JJ/ 07.01.19

Faseela @ Molly Basheer v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Faseela @ Molly Basheer v. District Collector

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

P.Padmalayam @ Padmalochanan Vs State of Kerala

K.Shajitha Vs State of Kerala

Rasheed M. Vs State of Kerala

S.N.Sobha Vs Smt. Anila

B.K.Sandhya Vs Union of India

K. Reghu Vs the Director Board, Kerala Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd.