The court held that failure to pay a nominal fee should not deny property rights, emphasizing the importance of continuous possession and the need for fair consideration of applications under land assignment rules.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that her father had obtained Ext.P1 Order of Assignment on Registry under the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules” respectively for short), with respect to the land involved in this case; but that it is now alleged that he had not remitted an amount of Rs.5.25 as Survey demarcation charges in the year 1970, solely because of which the consequential “Patta” had not been issued in his favour.

2. The petitioner says that, even assuming that the afore allegation is true, the fact remains that she and her family has been in continuous possession over the property in question for the last more than five decades and that a residential house has been constructed thereon, in which they were residing. She submits that her father died on 13/05/2006, leaving a Will dated 08/11/2004, as per which, the property has been bequeathed in her favour, thus leading to its transfer of Registry in her favour and remittance of land tax thereon, as are evident from Exts.P6 and P7.

3. The petitioner alleges that, however, in the year 2018-19, when she approached the 6 th respondent – Village Officer, for payment of land tax, it was refused saying that her father had not obtained “Patta” on the property in question, because he had not remitted the afore mentioned amount of Rs.5.25 as survey and demarcation charges. She contends that, apart from the fact that this assertion is wrong, even if it is taken to be true, she obtains a right under Rule 9(7) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules” for short) to seek condonation of delay for effecting payment of the same, subject to tender of the applicable interest.

4. The petitioner says that she, therefore, preferred an application to the Village Officer for such purpose, but that the same was rejected by the Tahsildar through Ext.P8, erroneously saying that she is not in possession of the land in question, presumably because she is presently residing elsewhere and the house her family constructed thereon having been leased out to someone else.

She asserts that the mere leasing of her property does not take away de facto possession from her and, therefore, prays that Ext.P8 is illegal and unlawful; thus praying that Ext.P8 and the consequential Ext.P10 order, issued by the Tahsildar, as also Ext.P13 order of the Sub Collector, Fort Kochi, be set aside and the jurisdictional Tahsidlar be directed to allow her to remit land tax on the property without any avoidable delay.

5. I have heard Dr.John Abraham – learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Resmi Thomas – learned Government Pleader, appearing for the official respondents.

6. The learned Government Pleader, in response, submitted that the petitioner cannot make any claim over the property in question because no “Patta” had been received by her or her father at any point of time until now. She submitted that, therefore, her possession of the property, even if it is found to be true, can only be construed to be in the nature of an encroachment and consequently, that the competent Authorities are fully justified in having issued Exts.P8, P10 and P14 orders. She thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

7. In reply, Dr. George Abraham submitted that since, admittedly, his client's father had obtained an Order of Assignment on Registry with respect to the property – which is evident from Ext.P1 – he was entitled to obtain a “Patta” thereon, but that solely on account of a technical reason, that he had not remitted the exiguous amount of Rs.5.25 towards su WP(C) NO. 15690 OF 2021 PETITIONER: rvey and demarcation charges, the same appears to have been refused to be issued. He submitted that, therefore, this is a fit case where his client obtains indefeasible rights, under Rule 9(7) of the “Rules”, to seek condonation of delay for remitting the said amount, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum; and that such an application is enjo