Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
George Pothen, S/o. Late P.G.George and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala Represented By The Chief Secretary and Others - Respondent
W.P.(C).Nos. 38354 of 2016 & 12371 of 2018
Decided on : 27-07-2018
The Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, Section 54- The Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964- Sec.74 - Land tax is to be collected from the Thandaper account even during the pendency of revenue recovery proceedings and mere attachment will not result in an encumbrance, which would deprive the State of its right to collect land revenue etc.
Statement of facts:
Prior to Ext.P-1 deed dated 11.10.1999, the janmam rights of the said property belonged to Thoriambath Tharavadu and the petitioners had purchased the janmam rights in respect of the abovesaid property having an extent of 117.48 acres as per Ext.P-1 deed dated 11.10.1999-Lease hold rights in respect of a large extent of property pertaining to the same janmam right holder, which was also inclusive of the abovesaid land covered by Ext.P-1-Stamp duty evaded, in respect of the transaction covered by Ext.P-2 as Rs.33,75,000/-and the evaded registration duty as Rs.33,750/-and ordering that those amounts be recovered from the three petitioners herein and that in case, they do not remit the said amounts, necessary steps should be taken to ensure that the said amounts are recovered through proceedings of the Revenue Recovery Act. These orders at Exts.P3 to P-5 that are essentially under challenge in this W.P©
Finding of the court:
The impugned action on the part of the respondents in refusing to accept the land tax in this case from the petitioner is nothing but illegal, improper and arbitrary. Consequently, it is ordered that the competent authority among the respondents 3 and 4 (Tahsildar, Vythiri and Village Officer, Vythiri), shall forthwith accept the land tax from the registered land holders in respect of land covered by Exts.P-1 and P-2, as and when they offer to remit the said amount. The arrears in that regard should also be accepted by respondents 2 and 3 immediately and land tax receipts in that regard will also be issued to the registered land holders of those properties. It is reiterated and declared that the mere act of accepting land tax from the registered land holders in respect of the property covered by Exts.P-1 and P-2, by itself will not in any manner, prejudice the claims and contentions of the State authorities as aforestated.
Result: Writ Petition (Civil) disposed of.
As both these cases pertain to the very same property, both these cases are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment.
W.P(C).No. 38354/2016
The three petitioners herein claim that they are co-owners in respect of the extent of property coming to 117.48 acres in Survey No.266/1 of Vythiri Village, Vythiri Taluk, in Wayanad Revenue District, covered by Ext.P-1 Janmam sale deed No.3357/1999 dated 11.10.1999 of SRO Kalpetta. It is the case of the petitioners that prior to Ext.P-1 deed dated 11.10.1999, the janmam rights of the said property belonged to Thoriambath Tharavadu and the petitioners had purchased the janmam rights in respect of the abovesaid property having an extent of 117.48 acres as per Ext.P-1 deed dated 11.10.1999. That later, the petitioners had sold off some of the portions of the said property and the remaining extent held by the petitioners comes to 65.33 acres in re-survey No.266/1 of Vythiri village. That since 30.10.1965 onwards, M/s.Cadbury India Ltd. was having lease hold rights in respect of a large extent of property pertaining to the same janmam right holder, which was also inclusive of the abovesaid land covered by Ext.P-1. After the execution and registration of Ext.P-1 deed dated 11.10.1999, the petitioners had persuaded the lessee M/s. Cardbury India Ltd. to surrender the lease and in that regard Ext.P-2 deed of surrender of the lease bearing document No.2313/2002 dated 14.11.2002 was duly registered before the SRO, Vythiri.
2. It is the further case of the petitioners that the stamp duty payable as on the date of execution of Ext.P-2 surrender deed (viz., 14.11.2002), was prescribed in terms of Art.54 of the Schedule of the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959. The said Art.54 as it stood then reads as follows:
“54. Surrender of lease-
(a)when the duty with which the lease is chargeable does not exceed one hundred rupees:
The duty with which such lease is chargeable.
(b) in any other case:
Hundred rupees”
(It is pointed out that the abovesaid amount of stamp duty of Rs.100/-in clause (b) of above was later substituted by Kerala Finance Act, 2013 (State Act 20.09.2013) w.e.f. 01.04.2013, whereby the said stamp duty is now Rs.250/-). The petitioners had accordingly paid the stamp duty as well as the registration fee in respect of the registration of Ext.P-2 deed of lease surrender dated 14.11.2002, with the SRO, Vythiri. It appears that thereafter a vigilance enquiry was initiated at the behest of the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau of the State Government, wherein it was alleged that the petitioners had deliberately paid lower stamp duty by showing the transaction covered by Ext.P-2 only as a deed of surrender and that the 1st petitioner herein had earlier entered into an agreement for sale pertaining to the leasehold rights of the said property with M/s Cadbury India Ltd. and the proposed sale consideration shown in that agreement for sale was Rs.2.7 crores. The objections were thus raised that the petitioners should have actually executed a sale deed for the abovesaid transaction, instead of Ext.P-2 deed of surrender and that therefore, the petitioners ought to have paid stamp duty in respect of the sale consideration of Rs.2.7 crores and that they have thus deliberately evaded stamp duty etc. It appears that the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau had conducted an enquiry in which the petitioners were never given a reasonable opportunity to participate in order to state their versions and to contest the objections. The report of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau was duly submitted to the State Government authorities, wherein it was allegedly found that the petitioners had deliberately evaded stamp duty in the abovesaid transaction as they had executed and registered Ext.P-2 surrender deed, by paying the stamp duty only for l
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
