Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 35295
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
WILSON THENGUMTHOTTATHIL – Appellant
Versus
THE SUB COLLECTOR MANANTHAVADY – Respondent
WP(C) 14560/2016
SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR), SRI.SRI.ANIL ABEY JOSE, SMT.BINI ELIZABETH
A transferee of land exempted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act must maintain the land for the original exempt purpose, failing which the conversion request can be denied.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Section 81 - Writ petition challenging refusal to convert land for residential construction - The petitioner sought permission to convert 20 cents of land from a total of 137 cents for residential purposes, which was denied based on the original exemption under the Land Reforms Act. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Exemption and Transfer of Land - The court reiterated that a transferee must establish eligibility for exemption under the Land Reforms Act, and the land must be used for the purpose for which the exemption was granted. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner purchased land from a previous owner who held it under an exemption from ceiling provisions. The request for conversion was rejected based on the original exemption status.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the principles from previous judgments regarding land exemption apply, and the petitioner must maintain the land under the original exemption category.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could convert the land for residential use despite the original exemption.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, as a transferee, must adhere to the original exemption conditions, which in this case required maintaining the land as a coffee plantation.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
The petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition challenging Ext.P10 communication issued by the 1st respondent herein refusing permission to convert 20 cents of land for the purpose of construction of a residential house out of an extent of 137 cents (0.5564 hectares) of land held by him. The petitioner states that he had purchased the above extent of property pursuant to Ext.P1 sale deed dated 03.06.2010 from one Smt.Nuchian Pathu @ Fathima, who got the afore property consequent to a partition deed at Ext.P1 with respect to the properties held by her mother, late Manima Ayesha Umma. The deceased Manima Ayesha Umma was holding the entire extent of properties including the one sold to the petitioner herein pursuant to Ext.P2 purchase certificate dated 26.10.1976 issued by the Land Tribunal, Mananthavady. The petitioner points out that the land tax with respect to the afore property was not being accepted originally and he had to approach this Court by filing W.P(C) No.14861 of 2015 and pursuant to the directions contained in Ext.P7 judgment of this Court, basic tax is being accepted.
2. The petitioner states that he later submitted an application before the 1st respondent to convert the land for the purpose of construction of a residential house. The 1st respondent called for a report from the 3 rd respondent. The 3 rd respondent submitted Ext.P9 report before the 1st respondent, pointing out that a portion of the property - 20 cents - may be permitted to be utilized for the construction of a residential house. The said request has been rejected by the 1st respondent herein at Ext.P10, stating that the petitioner is holding the property against an exemption under the Land Reforms Act and the same is to be retained as such.
3. It is challenging the order at Ext.P10 issued as above that the captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner.
4. I have heard Sri.Abraham Mathew (Vettoor), the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Sony K.B., the learned Government Pleader.
5. Sustainability or otherwise of Ext.P10 is the only issue arising for consideration in this writ petition. The petitioner filed Ext.P9, pointing out that he may be permitted to convert 20 cents of land out of the total extent of 137 cents held by him for the purpose of constructing a residential house. The afore prayer is rejected by the impugned order at Ext.P5. The finding contained in Ext.P10 is with reference to the property originally held by late Manima Ayesha Umma and the ceiling case against her. Late Manima Ayesha Umma was holding the property as an exempted category with reference to the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act , 1963.
6. A Division Bench of this Court in State Human Rights Protection Centre and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2009 (3) KHC 682] , with reference to the provisions of the Land Reforms Act, particularly, Sections 81 has held as under:
“If a person transfers land exempted under the Kerala Land Reforms Act , the transferee will be called upon to establish his eligibility and entitlement for the exemption and only if the transferee is otherwise entitled and eligible for exemption in terms of the original exemption, the land would be free from the ceiling provisions. In this case, as we have already noted above, public interest with which and for which the Government of Kerala granted exemption in respect of 100 acres of land to HMT under S.81(1)(a) of the Land Reforms Act is use of the land for industrial purpose. Therefore, in case the transfer is otherwise valid, the transferee will be liable to be put to the same acid test as to the use of the land. In other words, the 100 acres of land covered by Ext.R1(i) notification can be used only for industrial purposes.”
Later, Devassia R.V. and Another v. Sub Registrar, Idukki and Others [2015 (1) KHC 805] also followed the afore judgment finding as under:
“10. The provisions of the KLR Act also do not curtail fragmentation of the land which is exempted from
