Kerala High Court · 2024

As per the averment in the Writ Petition the only reason for not affecting mutation and to receive tax is the existence of revenue recovery proceedings against the seventh respondent who is the thandaper holder of the said property. This Court in Laila v. Village Officer, Thrikkovilvattom Village Office and others [2019 (4) KHC 799] has held that the refusal to mutate property and to accept basic land tax on the mere ground that revenue recovery proceedings are pending is not proper and revenue officials are obliged to accept basic tax from the land holder. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as follows :

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 : 2010 (4) KHC 142 Nevin Raju v. S.Basheer and others reported in 2015 (3) KLJ 197 : 2015 KHC 3676 : 2015 (3) KLT SN 6, that WP(C)NO.37261/2023 5 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 1996 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 favour mutation is ordered, to pay the land revenue in question. Moreover, the petitioner has purchased the property on the basis of Ext.P1 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 conveyed the property in question to the petitioner as per Ext.P1 and therefore, he/she is the registered land holder of the property in question. Section 3(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, which defines, “Land holder” as follows : “3(3) : ”Land holder” means, - predecessor, WP(C)NO.37261/2023 6 (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 (XXIX 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 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.” Going by the averments in this 7. case, the contingencies envisaged in clause (a), (b) and (c) of Section 3(3) of the above Act may not arise, but since the petitioner has purchased the property from the predecessor of the registered holder as per Ext.P1, certainly she is the assignee of the registered land holder as understood in clause (D) of S.3(3) and so she would fulfill the definition of “land holder” as understood in Section 3(3) more particularly clause (d) thereof. Section 5(2) of the Kerala Land Tax mandates that the competent revenue officials like the Tahsildar, Village Officer etc. are obliged to collect land tax from land holder concerned as understood in Section 3(3). Therefore, competent revenue WP(C)NO.37261/2023 7 officials like respondents 1 and 2 are obliged to accept basic land tax from the land holder concerned, as otherwise it would be violation of the mandate in Section 5(2) and Section 3(3) of the Land Tax Act. Accordingly, it is ordered that the first respondent Village Officer will immediately take up the request made by the petitioner in the abovesaid application for grant of mutation and acceptance of basic land tax as made out in Ext.P2 etc. and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner will grant the said request for mutation and will also issue basic land tax receipt in that regard forthwith. However, it is made clear that that any such action will not in any manner prejudice the finalisation of the revenue recovery proceedings as against the subject property, if it is otherwise is justified and warranted on facts and law and provided due procedure thereof is rigorously complied with.” In view of the categoric declaration of law as stated in Laila's case cited supra, I am of the view that the stand taken in Exts.P9 to P12 cannot be accepted. In view of the same, the above Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside Exts.P9 to P12 with a consequential direction to respondents 2 to 5 to effect mutation of the property covered by Exts.P1 to P4 deeds in favour of the petitioners. It is made clear WP(C)NO.37261/2023 8 that the mutation of the property as directed above or receipt of tax in respect of the said property will not in any manner prejudice the revenue recovery proceedings as against the subject property. Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE WP(C)NO.37261/2023 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37261/2023 PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NOS 1358/2022 OF DEVIKULAM SRO DATE 19.05.2022 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NOS 1359/2022 OF DEVIKULAM SRO DATE 19.05.2022 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NOS 1360/2022 OF DEVIKULAM SRO DATE 19.05.2022 OF THE 3RD PETITIONER Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NOS 1361/2022 OF DEVIKULAM SRO DATE 19.05.2022 OF THE 4TH PETITIONER Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE DEVIKULAM SRO DATED 20.09.2023 TO PROPERTY OF 1ST PETITIONER Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE DEVIKULAM SRO DATED 20.09.2023 WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF 2ND PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE DEVIKULAM SRO DATED 20.09.2023 WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF 3RD PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE DEVIKULAM SRO DATED 20.09.2023 WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF 4TH PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER DATED 19.10.2023. WP(C)NO.37261/2023 10 Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO 2ND PETITIONER DATED 19.10.2023. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO 3RD PETITIONER DATED 19.10.2023. Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO 4TH PETITIONER DATED 19.10.2023.