Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.
Rahulan – Petitioner
Versus
Tahasildar (Lr) Taluk Office, Mini Civil Station and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) NO. 7109 OF 2021
Decided On : 07-07-2021
Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 - Transfer of Registry – Revenue officer – Payment of Government revenue – Real owner name - Petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash Exhibits P4 and P5 and for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to retain the property covered in Exhibit P1 in the Transfer of Registry notwithstanding the attachment
Finding of the court:
As per Rule 15, when an application is presented to a Revenue Officer seeking transfer of Registry, the Tahsildar may call for details from the Village Officer and after securing information from the parties, regarding the fact of possession and enjoyment, payment of tax and other particulars, the Tahsildar has to determine the person in whose name the transfer of Registry shall be made. It further provides that the most important concern of the Land Revenue Department is to keep the Thandaper accounts (Chittal) up-to-date and bring into it the names of the real land holders, who shall be held liable for payment of Government revenue due on land. It would be worthwhile to remember that under Section 5 of the Land Tax Act, 1961, there shall be charged and levied a tax called (Basic tax) on all lands and it has to be paid by the landholder of the land. Land holder has been defined under Section 3(c)(d) in relation to land not falling within (a) to (c) of Section 3, the registered holder for the time being of such land - Admittedly, no proceeding as contemplated under Rule 18 was initiated. Before passing Ext.P5 order, the petitioner was not put on notice - Procedure adopted by the respondents is in blatant violation of the relevant Rules as well. Court have no doubt in my mind that the impugned order has been passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and against the provisions of the relevant rules.
Result: Writ petition disposed of
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner purchased an item of property having an extent of 81 Ares and 10 sq meters in Resurvey No.428/1 of Anchal village from a certain Gopinathan Nair as per Exhibit P1 sale deed executed and registered on 02/11/2020. The petitioner approached the revenue authorities and after following the procedure under the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, effected mutation and he was allotted a Thandaper number as 9995. Being the holder of land, he proceeded to remit land tax. Exhibit P2 is the land tax receipt issued by the second respondent on 18.12.2020. However, without notice to the petitioner, by Exhibit P5 proceedings, the Thandaper number allotted was cancelled and the earlier Thandapper was restored. This was for the reason that the property was attached by the Family court on a petition filed by the daughter-in-law of his vendor. Ext.P4 is a letter issued by the 2nd respondent informing the petitioner that the Thandaper number allotted to him was being cancelled as per the directions issued by the Tahsildar. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash Exhibits P4 and P5 and for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to retain the property covered in Exhibit P1 in the Transfer of Registry notwithstanding the attachment.
2. Sri. Arun Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner purchased the property on 2.11.2020. He would refer to Exhibit P6 Encumbrance certificate and it was urged that the attachment of the Family court was registered only on 4.11.2020, much after the registration of Exhibit P1 deed. According to the learned counsel, the relevant statutory Rules do not confer any powers to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to initiate any suo moto proceeding to cancel the Thandapper as has been done in the instant case. The fact that the petitioner was not put on notice and his version was not heard was also highlighted by the learned counsel. Finally, it is submitted that a subsequent attachment would not affect the right of the petitioner, who as the land holder, is bound to remit land tax as per the provisions of the Land Tax Act.
3. The learned Government pleader on instructions submitted that no notice was served on the petitioner before proceeding to pass Exhibit P5 order.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondent submitted that the petitioner is a real estate broker and he had colluded with the father-in-law of the 3rd respondent and had got the property assigned in his name to prevent the 3rd respondent from realizing the amount lawfully due to her.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced. Ext.P1 is the assignment deed dated 2.11.2020 executed by Sri. Gopinathan Nair in favour of the petitioner. Ext.P2 would reveal that the petitioner has remitted tax as per Thandaper number 9995, which has been allotted by the revenue authorities. It is emphatically clear from Ext.P6 Encumbrance certificate that the attachment of the property covered under Ext.P1 was effected on 4.11.2020 pursuant to orders passed in O.P.No.310/2020 on the files of the Family Court, Kottarakkara. From Ext.P4 letter issued by the Village Officer, it is apparent that the 3rd respondent had lodged a complaint before the Tahsildar and it was pursuant to orders passed by the said authority that mutation was cancelled. In Ext.P5 letter issued by the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent, the Tahsildar has informed that the Thandaper issued has been cancelled and the earlier Thandaper number was restored.
6. Rule 15 of the Transfer of Registry reads thus:
SupremeToday
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
