BINITT B NAIR v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Heard the learned Government Pleader also. Petitioner purchased his property as per the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and at the time of registration of sale deed the very same objection was raised, but this Court has rejected the said objection and directed registration…
Judgment
“6. It has been held in a catena of decisions by various High Courts including this Court as in Tulasibhai v. State of Kerala, reported in 2010 (4) KLT 215, Nevin Raju v. S.Basheer & Ors. reported in 2015 (3) KLJ 197 : 2015 KHC 3676 : 2015(3) KLT SN 6, that mere pendency of revenue recovery proceedings or attachment proceedings, etc. will not be sufficient justification on the part of the Village Officer, Tahsildar, etc. for refusing to accept basic land tax from land holders concerned. It has also been held that there are no provisions in the Transfer of Registry Rules interdicting acceptance of basic land tax on account of such contingency and that the competent revenue officials are obliged to accept land tax from the land holders concerned, as otherwise it would amount to loss of revenue to the public exchequer and would also amount to dereliction and abdication of the statutory duties of the competent revenue officials concerned.
It has also been held by various High Courts and the Apex Court in decisions as in Surney v. Inder Kaur reported in AIR 1966 SC 2823 that mutation of the property in the revenue records does not create any or extinguish title, nor has it any presumptive value on title and it only enables the person in whose WP(C) No. 1089 of 2024 : 4 : favour mutation is ordered, to pay the land revenue in question. Moreover, the petitioner has purchased the property on the basis of Ext.P-1 registered sale deed. It is not in serious dispute that the subject property in question was duly registered in the name of the petitioner's predecessor, who conveyed the property in question to the petitioner as per Ext.P-1 and therefore he/she is the registered land holder of the property in question. Sec. 3(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, which defines, “Land holder” as follows: “3(3): “Land holder” means,- (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; (b) in relation to any land in the possession of a kanam tenant as defined in the Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955 (XXIV of 1955), such kanam tenant; (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; (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 any 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.”
Before parting with this case, it is pertinent to point out that this Court has observed in quite a few number of cases about the seriousness of the situation and had called upon the higher functionaries of the State administration to examine the seriousness and magnitude of the problem reflected in cases like this where the competent revenue officials are unnecessarily refusing to accept basic land tax on untenable and unsustainable grounds as in the instant case. This Court had also directed that certified copies of those judgments should also given to higher officials like the Chief Secretary to Government and the Addl. Secretary to Government in Revenue Department, etc. and so far it is not known whether any attempts have been made by them to alert the competent revenue officials in charge of revenue administration and who are in charge WP(C) No. 1089 of 2024 : 5 : enforcement of the Kerala Land Tax Act and the rules framed thereunder for taking alert and vigilant measures to alleviate the grievances of the citizenry and also to ensure timely acceptance of basic land tax in respect of the Kerala Land Tax and the rules framed thereunder.
As has been observed by this Court in some cases, it appears to the understanding of this Court that Kerala Land Tax Act is the only branch in taxation law where the tax payers are running after the tax collectors to pay the tax dues and for reasons which are not easily fathomable, the tax collectors very often, as in the instant case, would adamantly refuse to accept basic land tax on untenable and unsustainable, which leads to serious loss of revenue to the public exchequer. Therefore, this state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue. Hence, this Court would alert the competent State authorities concerned that if dereliction and abdication of the statutory obligations and duties of the competent revenue officials like Tahsildar, Village Officer, etc. are continued to be exhibited as could be gathered by the nature of the litigations that may be posed before this Court, then this Court may be constrained to order that the competent revenue officials like Village Officer, Tahsildar, etc. would be liable to pay interest on the amount of land tax, which was refused to be accepted from the land holders concerned from the date of offer upto the date of actual payment, @ 18% p.a. so as to collect directly from the pay of the officials concerned to be credited to the treasury account concerned so that the public exchequer and public interest need not suffer due to the arbitrariness and illegalities committed in the enforcement of due collection land revenue under the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972.”
Operative part
Heard the learned Government Pleader also. Petitioner purchased his property as per the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and at the time of registration of sale deed the very same objection was raised, but this Court has rejected the said objection and directed registration of the sale certificate as per WP(C) No. 1089 of 2024 : 6 : Ext.P3 judgment and subsequently the same was registered also. In view of the categorical declaration of law of this Court in Laila’s case cited supra, I am of the opinion that the objection now raised is not sufficient and valid enough not to effect mutation of the property and to accept property tax. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to effect mutation of the property covered by Ext.P4 sale certificate and accept basic tax taking into consideration the dictum laid down by this Court in Laila’s case cited supra. Proceedings in this regard shall be completed within an outer limit of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of. VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE Sd/- sbk/- WP(C) No. 1089 of 2024 : 7 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1089/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, SOUTH INDIAN BANK A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 32023/2022 DATED 28-10-2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE CERTIFICATE DATED 12-12-2023 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 28-11-2023
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 — s. 3(3); Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963; Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955; Kerala Land Tax Act.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 10 Jan 2024. The bench was VIJU ABRAHAM.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.