Kerala High Court
S.Rajkumar vs The Tahsildar on 18 March, 2020
Author: Bechu Kurian Thomas
Bench: Bechu Kurian Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 28TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WP(C).No.2338 OF 2015(N)
PETITIONERS :
1 S.RAJKUMAR,
AGED 51 YEARS,
S/O.SUNDER RAJ, MUTHUBHAVANAM,
PERIAVILAIKARA, PUTHUKARAI P.O.,
KEEZHKULAM, VILAVANCODE,
KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU.
2 E.LILLIPUSHPAM
D/O.ELIAS, ARDESAM VILLAGE,
PIRAVIVILAIKKARA, PUTHUKADI P.O.,
VILAVANKODE TALUK, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU.
3 R.BEZAALINRAJ, (MINOR),
MUTHUBHAVANAM, PUTHUKARAI P.O.,
KEEZHKULAM, VILAVANCODE,
KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMILNADU,
REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER S.RAJKUMAR.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT
RESPONDENTS :
1 THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM
DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
PINCODE-685613.
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KEEZHANTHUR, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 620.
WP(C).No.2338 OF 2015(N)
2
3 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
BY G.P. SMT. PRIYA SHANAVAS WITH SPL. G.P.
(REVENUE) SRI K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.2338 OF 2015(N)
3
CR
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of March 2020 Petitioners, 3 in number, seek a very innocuous relief of acceptance of land tax for the properties covered by Exts.P1, P3 and P5 title deeds.
2. It is averred in the writ petition that first petitioner is the owner of an extent of 2.99 acres in Re. Sy.No.4/1-2 and 2.30 acres in Re.Sy. No.4/1-6 by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed. The 2nd petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner and owns an extent of 1.214 hectares in Survey No.4/1-, obtained as per Ext.P3 sale deed. The 3rd petitioner is the minor son of petitioners 1 and 2 and is the owner of an extent of 3.70 acres in Survey No.4/1-4 obtained as per Ext.P5 sale deed. The properties are situated in Keezhanthur village.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that their predecessor in title had obtained assignment of the land covered by the above referred title deeds, by virtue of proceedings for land assignment and consequent Pattas were issued as Exts.P2, P4 and WP(C).No.2338 OF 2015(N) 4 P6 produced in the writ petition.
4. Writ petitioners contend that pursuant to purchase of the properties, transfer of registry was carried out and thereafter they had been paying tax in their respective names till 2008-2009, as evidenced by Ext.P7 series of tax receipts. They further submitted that after 2009, the Village Officer refused to accept tax from them, on the ground that there were certain enquiries pending before the higher revenue officials relating to the genuineness of the title deeds of the petitioners. Alleging that refusal to accept land tax from the petitioners on the basis of some alleged enquiry proceedings is not justified, this writ petition has been preferred.
5. A statement has been filed on behalf of the first respondent, Tahsildar, Devikulam stating that the Pattas were issued in 1983 and in 1994 and that there seems to be alienations before the period of ten years which amounts to violation of conditions of the Patta. It is also stated that the veracity of the Pattas issued are liable to be looked into and also that on field verification, certain variations in the boundary, were noticed. It is WP(C).No.2338 OF 2015(N) 5 further averred that even though mutation was effected in the name of the petitioners, identity as to the actual Patta lands with the land in question could not be found.
6. An additional document has been produced by the writ petitioners seeking to bring to the notice of this Court, the final report filed in respect of Crime No.23/CR/EOW-II/KTM/2011 of the CBCID, Kottayam, which is based on FIR No.14/2011 of Marayoor Police Station. It was submitted that the said crime relates to the pattayams issued to the petitioners. A perusal of the final report reveals that after investigation, the Crime Branch has referred the case as 'mistake of fact', after entering into observations that justified the Pattas issued.
7. I heard Smt. Parvathy Manoj and Sri.Rajit, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader Smt.Priya Shanavas with Spl.Government Pleader (Revenue) Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar.
8. Smt. Parvathy Manoj, the learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently contended that as long as the Patta's remain in force, there is no justification on the part of the WP(C).No.2338 OF 2015(N) 6 Government to deny exercise of all proprietary rights of title over the properties in question and also that payment of tax is only a consequence of such exercise of the right to title. She also invited my attention to the provisions of The Kerala Land Tax Act 1961 (for short 'The Act') and argued that there was no legal justification for the Officer to refuse to accept tax due on the land.
9. I find great force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. As long as the Patta's remain in force and the same have not been set aside, it is only in the interest of revenue that the taxes for the properties are collected. Merely because there is some alleged dispute on title, the same is not a restriction for accepting tax due on the property. The incidence of land tax, under Section 5 of the Act, falls on the person in whose name the land is registered or in other words is shown as the landholder.
10. Section 5 of The Kerala Land Tax At, 1961 reads thus :
5. Charge of land tax.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act there shall be charged and levied a tax called "basic tax" on all lands, of whatever description and WP(C).No.2338 OF 2015(N) 7 held under whatever tenure-
(i) situated in the area comprising the former State of Travancore - Cochin for every financial year commencing on and from the 1st day of April, 1956.
(ii) situated in the Malabar area for the period commencing on and from the first day of September, 1957, and ending on the 31st day of March, 1958, and thereafter for every financial year commencing on and from the 1 st day of April, 1958.5
[x x x x ] 6 [x x x x ] (2) The basic tax charged on any land shall be paid by the land holder of that land 7[before such date as may be prescribed] :
8
[Provided that where-
(i) xxxx
(ii) x x x x
(iii) x x x x
the excess of the basic tax over such income shall be paid by the tenant or other persons in possession].9
[(2A) Where the basic tax charged under this Act for any period before the 1st day of April, 1998, is in arrears, the same shall be paid before such date* as may be specified by the Government in that behalf.] (3) The basic tax charged and levied under this Act shall be deemed to be public revenue due on land within the meaning of the Revenue Recovery Act for the time being in force and shall be recoverable under the provisions of that WP(C).No.2338 OF 2015(N) 8 Act.
10. Section 3(3)(d) of The Act defines a Land holder as follows:
3. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
[(3) "land holder" means,-
(a) x x x x
(b) x x x x
(c) x x x x
(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].
11. A perusal of section 5 of The Act, along with the definition clause of the term 'landholder' will reveal that a person in whose name a land is registered, has a bounden duty to pay the tax due under the provisions of The Act. The terms 'charged and levied' employed in section 5 of The Act, clearly conveys that there is a corresponding duty to collect the tax due on a property. Mode of collecting the tax due upon a property, when the landholder fails to pay, is by recourse to revenue recovery WP(C).No.2338 OF 2015(N) 9 proceedings as provided under section 5(3) of The Act. The provisions of The Act clearly convey the intention of the legislature that if a land remains registered under the name of a person, he is bound to pay the same. When the landholder offers to pay the basic tax due on a land, the Officer entrusted with the duty to collect the same has no authority to refuse it. Refusal to accept tax by the revenue officials on the premise of some pending enquiry or some dispute as to the title which has not even been raised before any authority competent to decide such a dispute, is according to me an abdication of the duty. Such an action, cannot, under any circumstances be tolerated. Every owner of a property, as long as the property remains under his/ her ownership is entitled to pay tax and to exercise all rights of ownership.
12. In this context, it is pertinent to note that no proceedings of any nature have been initiated by any officer questioning the validity of Patta issued to the predecessor in title of the petitioners. I am fortified in my findings on account of Ext.P9 also, which is the final report, and which was read out to WP(C).No.2338 OF 2015(N) 10 me in extenso. The said final report also goes to show that even the allegations against the Patta or its issuance have been, after investigation found to be a mistake of fact. Though the evidentiary value of Ext.P9 may not have strict bearing as and when a dispute is raised, for the present, the same certainly justifies the claim of the petitioners even as regards the veracity of the Pattas issued.
13. In this context, it is apposite to note that time and again, this Court, as well as the Supreme Court has clarified the legal position as regards acceptance of land tax as having no bearing on the question of title. In Sawarni (Smt.) v. Inderkaur (Smt.) and Others [1996 (6) SCC 223], the Supreme Court had held while dealing with the question of mutation that "mutation of property and acceptance of land tax will not, by itself either create or extinguish title, nor has it any presumptive value on title and it only enables the person in whose favour the mutation has been effected to pay land revenue in question". The decisions of this Court in Sudan v. State of Kerala [2013 (4) KLT 563], George Pothen and Others v. State of Kerala and WP(C).No.2338 OF 2015(N) 11 Others [2018 (4) KHC 795] and in Larson T.George v. State of Kerala [2019 (1) KLT 128], has also repeatedly pointed out the position of law that irrespective of disputes pending, a landholder is liable to pay tax and the same is bound to be accepted by the officers. This Court expresses its anguish in the revenue officials refusing to abide by the legal position laid down by this Court and the mechanical manner in which land tax is refused to be accepted.
In the above view of the matter, I allow this writ petition with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to accept the land tax for the properties covered by Ext.P1, P3 & P5 title deeds as and when it is offered, without any further delay.
Sd/-
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM WP(C).No.2338 OF 2015(N) 12 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEEDS OF THE PROPERTIES BELONGING TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 16.01.2002.
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL PATTAS IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES HELD BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER DATED 16.01.2002.
EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PATTA IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED OF THE PROPERTY OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.10.2014 PASSED IN WP(C) NO.17881/2014.
EXHIBIT P9 : A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CR.23/CR/EOW-II/KTM/2011 FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, DEVIKULAM DATED 30.09.2016.