Revenue authorities cannot determine title validity during mutation processes; such disputes must be resolved by civil courts.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner obtained 15.18 Ares of property by virtue of Ext.P1 registered settlement deed executed on 04.05.2012. The property originally belonged to the brother of the petitioner one Jacob Kunjukunju. In the year 2004, Jacob Kunjukunju transferred a portion of the land in question to his brother Varghese and his wife. This deed was cancelled by Jacob Kunjukunju by registered cancellation deed No.3620 of 2004 of Achal S.RO. After execution of the cancellation deed, he created a life interest in the property in favour of his parents through registered document No.3621/2004 of Anchal S.R.O. Thereafter, by Ext.P1 settlement, the property was settled in favour of the petitioner (sister of the aforesaid Jacob Kunjukunju). Since the life interest was created in favour of the parents of the petitioner, the parents of the petitioner are also parties to Ext.P1 deed which was executed in the year 2012. Petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved by Ext.P7 communication through which the petitioner has been informed that since the deed of cancellation executed in the year 2004 by Jacob Kunjukunju is not legal, the mutation in respect of the property cannot be effected in favour of the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on the judgments of this Court in Renjith K.C. V. District Collector, Ernakulam District and Others [2019 KHC 6] as also the judgment of this Court in Marunnoli Vijayalakshmi and Others V. Tahsildar, Koyilandi Taluk and Others [2019(1) KHC 142] , to contend that the revenue authorities cannot while effecting mutation and while accepting land tax determine the question of title as the mutation and acceptance of land lax is only for fiscal purposes and any dispute regarding title can only be adjudicated by the competent civil court.

3. The facts of this case show that the document which, according to the 1 st respondent, is illegal, was executed in the year 2004,. There is nothing on record to show that the said document has been challenged by any person till date. Therefore, going by the decisions of this Court in Renjith K.C (supra) and Marunnoli Vijayalakshmi (Supra) , the revenue authorities could not have determined the validity of the title of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances mentioned above. The only reason for not effecting mutation and accepting basic land tax from the petitioner as is discernible from Ext.P7 is that cancellation deed executed by Jacob Kunjukunju in the year 2004 is not a legal and valid document. Therefore, I am of the view that since the issues stand covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgments of this Court referred to above. The question as to whether the cancellation deed executed by Jacob Kunjukunju in the year 2004 is valid and legal can only be determined by a competent civil court and not by the revenue authorities when faced with an application for mutation and acceptance of land tax. Therefore, Exts.P6 and P7 orders issued by the Village Officer, Alayamon Village and the District Collector, Kollam respectively, both of which mention the invalidity of the cancellation deed executed in the year 2004, by Jacob Kunjukunju as the sole reason for not effecting mutation in favour of the petitioner, will stand quashed. The competent among the respondents is directed to effect mutation of the property in question in favour of the petitioner. It is made clear that the mutation and acceptance of land lax from the petitioner will be subject to any legal challenge that may be raised against the cancellation deed executed by Jacob Kunjukunju in the year 2004, if the same is maintainable at this distance of time.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.