Allowed

M.K. Prabhakaran, v. the District Collector

Kerala HC6 Nov 2020WP(C)/19377/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court held that revenue authorities cannot invoke grounds of government conservancy proceedings to deny mutation or issue revenue certificates to individuals holding valid title through registered partition deeds. The Court directed the authorities to issue necessary certificates without adverse endorsements, subject to any future civil adjudication of title by the State.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to issue revenue certificates, including RoR and Possession Certificate, without adverse endorsements upon application and payment of fees.

M.K. Prabhakaran, Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 15TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.19377 OF 2020(V)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 M.K. PRABHAKARAN, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O LATE KRISHNAN, MANJADIYIL HOUSE, UPPUTHARA P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685505.

¶8

2 M.K VIJAYAN, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O LATE KRISHNAN, MANJADIYIL HOUSE, UPPUTHARA.P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685505

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.K.AKHIL

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI , PIN-685603.

¶12

2 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PEERMADE, IDUKKI, PIN-685531

¶13

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, UPPUTHARA, IDUKKI, PIN-685505.

¶14

SRI KP HARISH, SR GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.19377 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioners state that they are brothers. They acquired title and possession over 55.44 Ares comprised in Sy. No. 338/122 of Upputhara village on the strength of Exhibit P1 partition deed. The property was originally owned by their father Late Sri. Krishnan. They contend that when they approached the respondents for effecting mutation and for issuance of revenue records in their name, their request was not acceded to. Instead, the petitioners were made to remit basic tax in the name of their deceased father without even changing the Thandaper Number. According to the petitioners, the respondents are refusing to effect mutation and accept tax on the ground that the property is situated within the Survey number of certain properties in which the Special Officer appointed by the Government had submitted a report. The Village Officer while refusing the request has also noted that by order dated 6.6.2019 vide No. 172 of 2019 of the Government, the respondents are interdicted from issuing revenue certificates. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to effect mutation of the property of the petitioners covered under Ext.P1 partition deed and also to issue Possession Certificate, RoR (Record of Rights) without any adverse endorsement and also to pay basic tax.

¶20

Sri. T.A.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel submits that the order

¶21

passed by the proceedings of the Special Officer was set aside by this Court by

¶22

WP(C).No.19377 OF 2020

¶23

¶24

judgment dated 7.11.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 40002 of 2016 and connected cases, wherein it was held by this Court that the proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act can be invoked only for the purpose of resumption or removal of encroachment from Government lands and not in respect of property owned by individuals and obtained by deeds which have been legally executed and registered in accordance with law. This Court had further held that in those cases where the individuals have raised a valid claim to title, the State will have to institute appropriate civil proceedings to establish its title. The petitioners also relies on judgment dated 18.2.2019 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.4647 of 2019 wherein this Court had held that no restrictions can be imposed on the right of the petitioner therein to remit basic tax on the strength of title deeds subject of course to the adjudication of title if any in a properly instituted suit by the Government. Reliance is also placed on Exhibit P3 judgment wherein this Court following the earlier precedents had directed the revenue authorities not to make any endorsement in any revenue certificates or other documents with regard to the claim now being raised by the Government.

¶25

I have heard the learned Government Pleader and have considered the submissions made across the Bar.

¶26

The property rights devolved upon the petitioners on the strength of Ext.P1 partition deed. In the judgments referred to by the learned counsel, this Court has held that proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act cannot be invoked in cases where the party concerned has valid title over the property. In

¶27

WP(C).No.19377 OF 2020

¶28

¶29

such cases, the State will have to institute appropriate civil proceedings to establish its title. Until the civil court holds against the petitioners on the basis of evidence let in, no embargo can be placed on their right to enjoy their property or in dealing with the same in the manner they choose. I respectfully concur with the above view.

¶30

In that view of the matter, I direct the competent among respondents to issue revenue certificates such as Location Sketch, RoR, Possession Certificate in respect of property covered under Exhibit P1, on the petitioners making an application and on remitting the requisite fees, without marking any adverse endorsements. However, it is made clear that the above order will be subject to the adjudication of the title in a Civil Suit, if any, instituted by the State.

¶31

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

sru

¶36

WP(C).No.19377 OF 2020

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.977/2017 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, PEERMADE.

¶41

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 19.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶42

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.03.2019 IN W.P.(c) NO.7641/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶43

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.02.2020 IN WP(C) NO.4170/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶44

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.08.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶45

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

P.A TO JUDGE

M.K. Prabhakaran, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K. Prabhakaran, v. the District Collector

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

Mr. O a Ninan Vs the District Collector

O.K. Venugopal, Vs the District Collector

C.M.Mustaffa Vs Additional Tahsildar, Kothamangalam Taluk

Moitheenkutty, Vs the Secretary

Shaiju@Laiju Vs State of Kerala

Shakeer Vs State of Kerala