SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Ker) 224

Judges : T.KOCHU THOMMEN
SREE S.N.TEMPLE - Appellant
Versus
TAHSILDAR - Respondent
Case No : O.P. No. 7356 of 1985
Decided On : 06/16/1988
Advocates Appeared :
P.G.K. Warrier; For Petitioner Government Pleader; For Respondent

The liability for land tax shifted from the landlord to the cultivating tenant after the land vested in the Government, and the cultivating tenant became the owner.

Headnote:

Land Tax - Liability of Landowner and Cultivating Tenant - The court held that the liability for land tax shifted from the landlord to the cultivating tenant after the land vested in the Government, and the cultivating tenant became the owner. The court clarified that the cultivating tenant is liable to pay taxes and cesses due in respect of the holding, and the landlord is no longer liable for taxes after the date of vesting.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged a proceeding demanding land tax and a notice of sale of immovable properties in the course of proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act. The petitioner contended that, due to the vesting of the land in question under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, all encumbrances had been discharged and the petitioner was no longer liable to pay taxes.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the liability for land tax shifted from the landlord to the cultivating tenant after the land vested in the Government, and the cultivating tenant became the owner. The court dismissed the Original Petition, stating that the contentions of the petitioner were unsubstantiated.

Issues: The issues involved the liability for land tax after the vesting of land in the Government under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, and the shift of liability from the landlord to the cultivating tenant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted S.72S of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, clarifying that the cultivating tenant is liable to pay taxes and cesses due in respect of the holding, and the landlord is no longer liable for taxes after the date of vesting.

Final Decision: The Original Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the petitioner.

Judgment :-

1. The petitioner challenges Exts. P1 and P3. Ext. P1 is a proceeding of the Tahsildar by which he has demanded land tax in respect of properties held by the petitioner until 1-1-1970. Ext. P3 is a notice of sale of immovable properties in the course of proceedings initiated under the Revenue Recovery Act in enforcement of the demand under Ext. P1. The petitioner contends that, by reason of the vesting of the land in question in terms of S.72(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, all encumbrances which existed in respect of the land had been discharged and the petitioner was no longer liable to pay taxes due in respect of the land and proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act are not sustainable. The Government Pleader in answer to this contention submits that the taxes demanded are those payable under S.5 of the Kerala Land Tax Act and they were not encumbrances created by the landowners, as postulated under S.72(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, but public revenue due on the land and therefore, recoverable by attachment and sale of the defaulter's properties in terms of S.5 and other provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. The Government Pleader refers to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kurikilal Bhagavathi Devaswom v. State of Kerala, 1977(2) I.L.R.618.

2. In the light of the decision of the Division Bench, the contention of Shri. Warrier on behalf of the petitioner on this point is unsustainable.

3. Shri. Warrier further submits that assuming that the provisions of S.72(1) do not have the effect of discharging the liability which arose under S.5 of the Land Tax Act, such liability which arose prior to 1-1-1970 is no longer enforceable against the landlord by reason of S.72-S of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. He submits that the cultivating tenant is the person liable for such tax subsequent to 1-1-1970 and the landlord after that date is no longer liable. As a result of this Section, counsel submits, the liability is shifted from one person to another just as the land was vested in the Government for the purpose of transferring it to the cultivating tenant.

4. S.72S reads: 72S. Liability for assessment after the date of vesting under S.72.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, or in any other law for the time being in force, or in any contract, where the right, title and interest of the landowner and the intermediaries, if any, in respect of a holding have vested in the Government under S.72, the cultivating tenant of that holding shall be liable to pay the basic tax payable in respect of that holding under the said Act and other taxes and cesses due in respect of that holding.

(2) In the case of a holding or part of a holding in respect of which an application for resumption under the provisions of this Act is rejected the cultivating tenant shall be liable to pay the basic tax and other taxes and cesses in respect of such holding or part of the holding, as the case may be, with effect on and from the date notified under sub-section (1) of S.72."

The object of this Section, as of the enactment itself, is not to fasten a liability upon the cultivating tenant or to confer a benefit on the landlord in respect of matters relating to the period of tenancy. The object of the legislature was to confer a benefit on the tenant by transferring to him land which had become vested in the Government on the appointed day. But once the land has been assigned to the tenant he is no longer a tenant, but is himself the owner, and therefore like any other owner becomes for the first time liable under S.5 of the Kerala Land Tax Act. S.72S is merely clarificatory of what is otherwise, in my view, clear. As from the date on which the tenant becomes the owner of the land, of which he was until then only a tenant, he being the owner is liable to pay tax under the Land Tax Act. But his liability is only prospective and he cannot be fastened with any liability which arose prior to 1-1-1970.



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top