Dismissed

The Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk Office, v. Mohandas.N.S.

Kerala HC18 Jun 2019WA/1397/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal by Revenue Officers dismissing lower court order directing mutation and tax acceptance in a property dispute. Court held title must be adjudicated by appropriate proceeding and Village Officer lacks competence to declare title.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit; no interference with the impugned judgment was granted.

The Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk Office, Vs Mohandas.N.S. — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 28TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶6

WA.No.1397 of 2019

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4284/2019 of HIGHCOURT

¶8

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:

¶9

1 THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, PARK AVENUE, KOCHI, PIN-682 011.

¶10

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, PARK AVENUE, KOCHI, PIN-682 011.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN,ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL ADV.SRI.JAFFERKHAN Y., GOVT. PLEADER

¶12

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WPC:

¶13

SRI.MOHANDAS.N.S., S/O.LATE M.G.S.MENON, RESIDING AT PRAJANI, ERATTAKULANGARA ROAD, PACHALAM P.O., KOCHI-682 012.

¶14

BY ADV.SRI.ANIL S.RAJ

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.A.No.1397 of 2019

¶17

¶18

J UDGMENT

¶19

Hrishikesh Roy, C.J.

¶20

The Tahsildar of Kanayannur Taluk and the Village Officer of Ernakulam Village, who were the respondents in the W.P.(C)No.4284 of 2019, challenge the judgment dated 13.2.2019 of the learned single Judge.

¶21

The respondent/writ petitioner (Mohandas N.S.) secured certain right over property, on the basis of the sale deed dated 22.5.2017 (Ext.P1) executed by the vendor (R.Gopalan Nair) in favour of the writ petitioner. On that basis, the purchaser made an application on 28.10.2017 (Ext.P3) before the Village Officer for mutation of the property comprised in Sy.No.2549/1 (T.P.88) of Ernakulam Village. However, the Village Officer, in his decision dated 3.12.2017 (Ext.P5), noted that in respect of the predecessor-ininterest, the title of the property vested in the 'Ernakulam Devaswom Pattom' and therefore without securing the janmam, the mutation cannot be considered. Aggrieved by such a stand in the Ext.P5 communication of the Village Officer, the Writ Petition was filed by the purchaser.

¶22

In the Writ Petition, the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that an application for issuance of purchase certificate covered by the Ext.P1 sale deed is already filed but since securing the purchase certificate will be time consuming, the mutation may be granted and the Basic Tax for the purchased property be accepted.

¶23

The learned Judge referred to the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972 and the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 and observed that the mutation and transfer of registry is intended for limited arrangement for fiscal purposes in order to ensure timely collection of land revenue. The court next observed that the writ petitioner's predecessor-ininterest had obtained the subject property, on the basis of the registered sale deed

¶24

W.A.No.1397 of 2019

¶25

¶26

dated 30.5.1979 (Ext.P2), executed by one Bhaskara Menon @ K.B.Menon and thereafter the purchaser R.Gopalan Nair executed the Ext.P1 sale deed in favour of the writ petitioner (Mohandas N.S.). The judgment noted that none of the predecessors had formally mutated the property in their respective names and though the basic land tax has been paid by them, it was paid in the name of the erstwhile Janmi/land holder i.e. Ernakulam Devaswom.

¶27

According to the learned Judge, while the purchase certificate is required to be obtained under Section 72K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 for perfecting the title, the denial of mutation and transfer of registry and refusal to accept the Basic Land Tax from the present holder cannot be deferred only in the absence of the purchase certificate as that would result in loss of revenue to the public exchequer. Thus, in the impugned judgment dated 13.2.2019, the court ordered the Village Officer to consider the request made in the Ext.P3 application for grant of mutation, transfer of registry and acceptance of Basic Tax, in respect of the property covered by the Ext.P1 sale deed.

¶28

Assailing the legality of the above judgment, the learned Government Pleader Sri.Y. Jafferkhan submits that since the property covered by the Ext.P1 sale deed is registered in the name of the Ernakulam Devaswom in the Basic Tax Register (Ext.P9), the status of the predecessor-in-interest, would be of a tenant and not that of the title holder of the property. On this basis, the Government Pleader contends that the transfer of full title under the Ext.P1 sale deed could not have been effected in favour of the writ petitioner, by the erstwhile vendor R.Gopalan Nair, who in his turn had secured the limited right, through the previous sale deed dated 30.5.1979 (Ext.P2), from one Bhaskara Menon @ K.B.Menon.

¶29

It can be seen from the Ext.P1 sale deed itself that the property was described as 'Ernakulam Devaswom Pattom' and therefore, the nature of the property or the right of the vendor flowing from the deed, is clearly discernible. As such the

¶30

W.A.No.1397 of 2019

¶31

¶32

mutation and acceptance of Basic Tax on the basis of the Ext.P1 sale deed would not result in transfer of any better title in favour of the purchaser (writ petitioner) than what the vendor (R.Gopalan Nair) had himself possessed, over the property.

¶33

The learned Judge in the impugned judgment had noted the nature of the property as well as the rights enjoyed by the immediate and the previous predecessors, who executed the Exts.P1 & P2 sale deeds. But only for the interest of the revenue, direction was issued to the Village Officer to act on the application dated 28.10.2017 (Ext.P3) of the purchaser (writ petitioner).

¶34

On due consideration of the rival contention and applying our mind to the statutory provisions, we feel that interference need not be caused to the impugned judgment dated 13.2.2019 in the W.P.(C)No.4284 of 2019 inasmuch as the acceptance of Basic Tax or mutation, cannot confer any absolute title to the writ petitioner/purchaser. The title issue will have to be adjudicated in an appropriate proceeding but the Village Officer, in our considered view, is not competent to make any declaration with regard to the title of the property. In such view, the Writ Appeal is found devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

Hrishikesh Roy, Chief Justice

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, Judge

¶39

vpv

¶40

/true copy/

¶41

P.A. To Judge

The Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk Office, v. Mohandas.N.S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk Office, v. Mohandas.N.S.

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

Dinesh Kumar v.P., Vs Union of India

Reshma Majeed Vs Shameer Babu Mulakkal

Greater Cochin Development Authority Vs [email protected]

Gangadharan, Vs Madhusoodanan

Cochin Sanitary Stores Vs Siraj.a

Marine Fins, 2/266 Vs Union of India