Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13316
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
K.M.JALEEL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 28105/2020
TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN (SR.), SMT.ANILA UMESH
The Kerala Land Reforms Act does not restrict the alienation of exempted land, allowing for mutation and issuance of necessary documents.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Land Reforms Act - Section 81(e) - Writ petition seeking direction for mutation of property - Petitioners purchased land but faced delays due to classification as plantation under the Act - Court relied on Devassia v. Sub Registrar [2015 (1) KLT 825] to assert that there is no restriction on alienation of exempted land - Court directed respondents to consider mutation application and issue necessary certificates. (Paras 2, 3, 4)
(B) Alienation of land - The court emphasized that the Kerala Land Reforms Act does not restrict the alienation of exempted land, supporting the petitioners' request for mutation. (Paras 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners purchased land and applied for mutation, but faced delays due to its classification as a plantation under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. They cited previous judgments where similar requests were granted.
Findings of Court:
The court found no reason to deviate from previous judgments and directed the respondents to process the mutation application and issue necessary documents.
Issues: The main issues were whether the property could be mutated despite its classification as a plantation and the legality of the petitioners' request for mutation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Kerala Land Reforms Act does not prohibit the alienation of exempted land, thus supporting the petitioners' claims for mutation and issuance of certificates.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions to consider mutation and issue certificates.
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to consider the application for effecting mutation of respective properties of the petitioners and to issue location sketch and possession certificate.
2. The petitioners purchased certain extent of land as per Exts.P1 and P2. Later they applied for transfer of registry of the said property in their name and also seeking issuance of location sketch and possession certificate. But, no steps were taken by the respondent Village Officer to effect mutation of the property. The petitioners on enquiry came to know that the delay in effecting mutation was due to the fact that the property was included as a Plantation as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act . The petitioners relying on the judgment in Devassia v. Sub Registrar [2015 (1) KLT 825] and Exts.P5 to P10 judgments submit that in similar circumstances this Court has interfered and issued directions granting the reliefs sought for by the petitioners therein.
3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent, wherein it is contended that the property was purchased from a large extent of land having 288.6870 Hectares, in Sy.No.633 of Vagamon Village, the property exempted from the operation of the Ceiling provisions under Section 81 (e) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act . It is also contended that going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioners have purchased the property for the purpose of cultivation as well as for construction of a residential building and making construction after effecting fragmentation is prohibited by the Land Reforms Act and also against the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. A plantation should be always maintained as plantation or else it will effect the ecological as well as the socio-economic development of the people of the State. It is also contended that prevention of fragmentation is also one of the object of the . It is further submitted that fragmentation of an estate should be treated as conversion of plantation and thus opposed the request of the petitioners.
4. Going by the judgment in Devassia's case cited supra, this Court has categorically held that there is no provision in the Kerala Land Reforms Act for restricting alienation of exempted land in whole or part. Further, in Exts.P5 to P10 judgments, similar requests made the petitioners therein were granted by this Court. Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, I find no reason to take a different view that was taken in Devassia's case cited supra as well as in Exts.P5 to P10 judgments.
Therefore, the above writ petition is disposed of as follows:
1. There will be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to consider the application for effecting mutation of respective properties of the petitioners and to effect mutation and to issue location sketch and possession certificate.
2. If any of the properties are found to be converted before or after the purchase, the respondents will be free to take action as may be lawfully pursued including that the revenue officials are free to bring it to the notice of the Taluk Land Board or the appropriate Authorities to include the property in the account of the holder of land at the time of exemption for the purpose of ceiling.
