SONIYAMMA MATHEW v. THE STATE OF KERALA

was challenged before this Court and this Court as per Ext.P5 judgment, was pleased to set aside the same, holding that the proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act cannot be invoked and the State if aggrieved, has to institute appropriate civil proceedings to establish its title in accordance with law. The Court also permitted the acceptance of Basic Tax from the petitioners therein. The petitioner also relies on Exts.P6 and P7 judgments in support of her contentions.

3. This court in W.P.(C) No.27813 of 2018 considered the request of the petitioner therein to effect mutation in respect of the property of the petitioner therein and to accept land tax and held in paragraphs 2 and 3 as follows: “2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had purchased property from the assignees of M/s.Harrisons Malayalam Ltd, and the pendency of proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act against M/s.Harissons Malayalam Ltd., was the reason for the non-consideration of the application for mutation and the refusal to the acceptance of land tax. It is submitted that the Division Bench of this court in decision reported in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd(M/s) V. State of Kerala [2018(2) KLT 369], has held that the proceedings W.P.(C). No.670 of 2024 : 4 : under the Land Conservancy Act are incompetent in view of the bonafide claim to title raised by the Harissons Malayalam Ltd., and their assignees. It is therefore contended that the refusal on the part of the respondents to consider the application for mutation and also to accept basic tax from the petitioner is per se illegal and unsustainable.

3. The learned Government Pleader would submit that land tax can be accepted from the petitioner subject to any adjudication of the question regarding title. Accordingly,there will be a direction to the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner for mutation in accordance with law, and to effect transfer of registry, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled in accordance with law. The pendency of any notice or proceedings by the Special officer shall not stand in the way of such consideration. The village officer shall also accept the land tax from the petitioner and issue thandaper number and possession certificate on the strength of the title deeds, subject to any proceedings with regard to the title to the property. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.” The said judgment was followed by this court in W.P.(C) No. 35097 of 2018 and connected cases and held in paragraph 3 as follows: “3. The lands purchased by the petitioners as per registered sale deeds produced in these cases are all part of the larger extent of land holdings held by M/s.Malayalam Plantations Ltd. The competent authorities of the State Government had claimed that the titles over the land actually vest with the State and on that basis, had taken land conservancy proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act and the rules framed thereunder by appointing a special officer for W.P.(C). No.670 of 2024 : 5 : recovery of possession of the land from M/s.Malayalam Plantations Ltd. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala reported in 2018 (2) KLT 369, has held that the proceedings initiated thereunder, as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act are incompetent and ultra vires in view of the bona fide claim of title raised by M/s. Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. and their assignees and had accordingly quashed the impugned orders therein under the KLC Act and had given liberty to the respondent State to file a civil suit in case they insist for establishment of title over the said lands. The said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court by the dismissal of SLP (Civil Appeal) filed by the State against the said judgment. This Court in a series of cases, as in Exts.P-9 to P-11 as well judgment dated 17.9.2018 in W.P. (C).No.27813/2018, has given reliefs to such similar assignees of lands purchased from M/s.Malayalam Plantations Ltd., by directing that the requests for mutation acceptance of land tax, issuance of possession certificate, location sketch, etc., should be allowed in respect of the purchasers of the properties concerned on the basis of registered sale deeds, but this will be without prejudice to the claim of the State for title, which they have to establish in appropriate civil proceedings. In the instant cases, it appears that mutation has already been granted to the petitioners. But subsequently the competent Revenue authorities concerned have refused to accept basic land tax from the petitioners in respect of the said properties citing the abovesaid objection, which has now been overruled by this Court in the abovesaid judgments. Accordingly, it is ordered that the competent authorities among respondents W.P.(C). No.670 of 2024 : 6 : 2 and 4 in these cases should accept basic land tax from the petitioners and also issue thandaper account number certificate, possession certificate, location sketch, etc. Needful in this regard should be done by the competent authorities among respondents 2 to 4 without much delay, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. However, this will be without prejudice to the contentions of the State regarding the question of title that may be raised by them in any such appropriate civil proceedings that may be instituted by them in that regard.” As regards adverse endorsement in the tax receipt that tax is received subject to the further proceedings in the civil suit proposed to be filed by the State, this court in W.P.(C) No. 25805 of 2020 has held as follows: “5. Ext.P1 settlement deed shows that the petitioners have acquired title over the property covered under the deed. They have produced records showing that transfer of registry has been effected in their favour and they have been paying tax. However, in the tax receipt, an endorsement has been made to the effect that the tax is being received provisionally. Their grievance is that when they sought for issuance of Possession Certificate, ROR Certificate and other revenue records and also for removing the endorsement in the tax receipt, they were informed that the revenue records cannot be issued to them in view of Ext.P4 proceedings No.GLR(LR)210/15/PER-TCO dated

12.08.2016 of the Special Officer and Collector. I find that the above proceeding has already been set aside by this Court by Ext.P5 judgment dated 07.11.2018 wherein this W.P.(C). No.670 of 2024 : 7 : Court has held that the proceedings issued by the District Collector cannot be sustained. It was further held that the remedy of the respondent-State Government is to institute appropriate civil suits before the competent civil court in the matter of title and not by issuing the impugned proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act. In that view of the matter, there is no justification on the part of the respondents in refusing to issue the certificates sought for by the petitioners on that count.

6. The respondents have raised a contention that the property owned by the petitioners are parts of larger extents of properties, which had earlier secured exemption under Sec.81(1) (e) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, on the ground that it is plantation land. It is contended that the fragmented plots of land are being used for non exempted purposes and therefore illegal. A Division Bench of this Court in the common judgment dated 04.04.2017 in W.A.Nos. 564 & 612 of 2017 has held that the question as to whether the petitioners landowners would be actually using the lands in question for nonexempted purposes and thus violating the exemption clause would arise only when they actually use the land for quarrying purposes and not at the stage when they seek a Possession Certificate for any such prospective use and that those objections and contentions are not relevant and germane for refusal of issuance of such revenue certificates and that the respondent-State authorities are fully at liberty to raise all such contentions and such objections at the appropriate time, when a cause of action in that regard actually arises. In view of the said judgment, the respondents are obliged in law to consider the request of the petitioners without being burdened down by the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. Furthermore, this Court in Devassia v. Sub Registrar has W.P.(C). No.670 of 2024 : 8 : held that the provisions of the KLR Act do not place any embargo on transfer and the transfer of registry is for fiscal purposes on transfer and that said Act also do not curtail fragmentation of exempted lands from the purview of ceiling, but that exempted category of land, to have continuity of the qualification of exemption, the alienee or the transferee shall use the land for any of the purposes, for which exemption would be granted and if the land is used for a non-exempted purpose, either before or after the purchase, then certainly the respondent-State authorities may have the competence to take appropriate action as is warranted on law and facts, in that regard. In that view of the matter, the contention forcefully advanced by the learned Government Pleader cannot be sustained.

7. However, in view of the concern expressed by the State, it is made clear that it would be open to the competent among respondents to proceed against the petitioners under the Land Reforms Act, if a case is made out and in that event, the same shall be strictly as per procedure and in accordance with law with due notice to the petitioners. Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the concerned respondent to forthwith take up the request made by the petitioners for issuance of revenue certificates like Possession Certificate, location sketch, ROR certificate, etc. in respect of the properties covered under Ext.P1 and shall issue the same to the petitioners. It is also made clear that the tax receipt, if any, issued to the petitioners, shall not carry out any adverse endorsement. Before parting, it is made clear that the directions issued as aforesaid will be subject to the adjudication of the title in a Civil Suit, if any, instituted by the State.” The said view was reiterated in W.P.(C)No. 16908 of 2021 wherein W.P.(C). No.670 of 2024 : 9 : it is held as follows: “When this matter was called today, it was conceded by the learned Senior Government Pleader, Shri.Aswin Sethumadhavan, that the issues projected by the petitioners in this writ petition have already been answered in their favour by a learned Judge of this Court in Ext.P7 judgment.

2. In the afore circumstances, I am certain that petitioners are also entitled to the same relief, as has been granted by this Court to the petitioners in W.P(C)No.25805 of 2020, from which Ext.P7 judgment has emanated. In the afore circumstances, being guided by Ext.P7, I allow this writ petition, directing the competent respondent to consider the request made by the petitioners for issuance of documents like possession certificate, location sketch, ROR certificate and such other - with respect to the properties covered by Ext.P1 and Ext.P1(a) - and to issue the same to them. It is further ordered that the tax receipts and other documents to be issued to the petitioners shall not carry any adverse endorsement; however, clarifying that the directions issued in this judgment will be subject to any adjudication of the title of the petitioners in a civil suit, if any, instituted by the State of Kerala and its competent Authorities. Needless to say, in view of my afore directions, the endorsement in Ext.P2 and Ext.P2(a) tax receipts shall be effaced by the competent Authority; or a fresh certificate shall be issued without it, at the earliest.” This court in W.P.(C) No. 19377 of 2020 has also considered similar circumstances and in paragraphs 4 and 5 it is held as follows: “4. 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 W.P.(C). No.670 of 2024 : 10 : proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act cannot be invoked in cases where the party concerned has valid title over the property. In 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.

5. 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.” This Court again considered the above issue in W.P.(C) No. 25107 of 2023 where in paragraphs 3 and 4 it is held as follows: “3. The petitioner has obtained title to the property by virtue of Ext.P2 Sale Deed. In Ext.P3 judgment 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. It was further held that, in such cases, the State will be free to initiate appropriate civil proceedings to establish its title and until such orders are obtained in Civil Court proceedings, no embargo can be placed on the right of the petitioner to enjoy the property or in dealing with the same in the manner they choose.

4. Accordingly, in the light of Ext.P3 judgment I direct the 3rd respondent to issue Revenue Certificates including W.P.(C). No.670 of 2024 : 11 : ROR, Possession Certificates and location sketch without making any adverse endorsements on remitting the requisite fees. The petitioner shall also be permitted to pay land tax in respect of the aforesaid property and tax receipt shall not carry any adverse endorsement. It is made clear that the direction in this judgment will be subject to adjudication of title in any civil suit, if instituted by the Government.”

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader.

5. The petitioner has obtained title to the property by virtue of Ext.P1 Sale Deed. In the judgments cited above, 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. It was further held that, in such cases, the State will be free to initiate appropriate civil proceedings to establish its title and until such orders are obtained in Civil Court proceedings, no embargo can be placed on the right of the petitioner to enjoy the property or in dealing with the same in the manner they choose.

6. Accordingly, in the light of the above, Ext.P3 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 5th respondent to issue Revenue Certificates including ROR, Possession Certificates and location sketch without making any adverse endorsements on remitting the requisite fees/mutation. The petitioner shall also be W.P.(C). No.670 of 2024 : 12 : permitted to pay land tax in respect of the aforesaid property and tax receipt shall not carry any adverse endorsement. It is made clear that the direction in this judgment will be subject to adjudication of title in a civil suit, if any instituted by the State. The writ petition is disposed of. sm/ Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE W.P.(C). No.670 of 2024 : 13 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 670/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P4(a) Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 2911/2022 OF PEERMADE SRO DATED 04/08/2022 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 2093/2000 OF PEERMADE SRO DATED 19/07/2000 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 18/11/2023 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. GLR(LR) 210/15/PER-TCO DATED 12/8/2016 OF THE SPECIAL OFFICER & COLLECTOR A TRUE COPY OF THE GO NO. 172/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 6/6/2019 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7/11/2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18/2/2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 08/09/2021 IN W.P.(C). NO. 16908/2021