Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 37353
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, J
SAFEER MON, – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM, – Respondent
WP(C)/28099/2020
P.SAMSUDIN
The court established that property ownership transfer for tax purposes is permissible even if the land was previously classified as plantation, pending legal compliance.
Headnote:
Tax - Property Ownership - Kerala Land Reforms Act - Section 81 - The court directed the acceptance of land tax payments and registry transfer to a property owner, emphasizing that prior fragmentation of plantation land does not prevent such processes while allowing the state to pursue necessary actions under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an absolute owner of a property previously classified as plantation land, seeks permission to remit land tax and effect registry transfer, following refusal by revenue authorities based on the property's previous plantation status.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had the right to remit land tax and effect a transfer of registry, despite the property being categorized as plantation land under the Kerala Land Reforms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act do not prevent the transfer of property ownership for tax purposes, and authorities are bound to consider such requests regardless of previous land classification, unless proven otherwise at a later procedural stage.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, directing the authorities to effect the transfer of registry and accept tax payment.
JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the revenue authorities in accepting basic tax from the petitioner in respect of an item of property over which, he holds absolute title and possession, the petitioner is before this Court seeking directions.
2. The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner in title and possession of the property admeasuring 0.0405 hectares falling in R.S. No 3/1-6 of Kerala Estate Village. He had purchased the property on the strength of Ext.P1 assignment deed No. 1305/2020 dated 25.08.2020. It is contended that pursuant to orders issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.17555/2019, the vendor of the petitioner had been permitted to remit basic tax and he has remitted the same as is evident from Ext.P3. The petitioner contends that immediately after purchase of the property, he approached the 3rd respondent to effect the transfer of registry and to pay basic tax. However, his request was not acceded to on the ground that the said property was earlier a plantation and was excluded from the ceiling limit of excess land as per the Land Reforms Act. According to the petitioner, fragmentation of plantation by itself is not a ground to refuse acceptance of basic land tax after effecting mutation. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the competent among respondents to permit the petitioner to remit land tax.
3. In the statement filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the property purchased by the petitioner was part of plantation land. Under Section 81 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act , splitting up plantation land after getting ceiling exemption cannot be permitted. It is stated that the fragmentation of the plantation land was carried out years back. The Government has every authority to proceed against the declarant for violation of the provisions of the Land Reforms Act.
4. I have heard Sri.P.Samsudin, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.K.Amminikutty, the learned Senior Government Pleader.
5. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that section
81 of the KLR Act is a special provision, with its main objective of giving exemption to certain lands including the lands maintained as plantations. It is contended that fragmentation of land which may lead to its conversion is prohibited as per the provisions of the Act. The records would reveal that the property of the petitioner was part of plantation land and as it has been converted in violation to the provisions of the Act, the declarant will have to be proceeded against. Necessary proceedings are being initiated against the original declarant.
6. I have considered the submissions made across the Bar.
7. Ext.P1 sale deed shows that the petitioner had acquired title over the property covered under the deed on 25.08.2020. The reason assigned by the respondents for refusing to consider the application filed by the petitioner is that the property owned by the petitioner was part of a larger extent of properties categorised as plantation thus entitling them to an exemption under Sec.81(1) (e) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act , 1964. A Division Bench of this Court in the common judgment dated 04.04.2017 in W.A.Nos.564 & 612 of 2017 has held that the question as to whether the subsequent purchasers would be actually using the lands in question for non- exempted purposes and thus violating the exemption clause would arise only when they actually use of the land for non exempted purposes and not at the stage when they seek revenue records. It was further held that State authorities are at liberty to raise all such contentions and objections at the appropriate time when a cause of action in that regard actually arises. Furthermore, this Court inDevassia v. Sub Registrar [ 2015(1) KLT 825 ] has held that the provisions of the KLR Act do not place an embargo on transfer. The transfer of registry being for fiscal purposes, it is open to the competent authority to reopen
