JUDGMENT

Dated this the 7 th day of January , 202 2 .

The petitioner says that, she is the owner in possession of 20.24 Ares of land, comprised of in Re.Sy.No.46/1 of Kalliad Amsom Desom and that she obtained title to it through Ext.P1 sale deed, which was executed by her own father Sri.Abdul Salam. She explains that Sri.Abdul Salam obtained title to the property on the strength of a sale deed he obtained from a certain Smt.K.Mariyam in the year 1990, who was its original pattadar as per Purchase Certificate issued in the year 1977, on the basis of an order of assignment by the competent Taluk Land Board (TLB); and that he had remitted land tax on it till 1992, as is evident from Ext.

P2.

2. The petitioner says that, however, after she purchased the property, she was refused permission to remit land tax on it, merely saying that there is some discrepancy with respect to its description and identity. The petitioner asserts that she has been in continuous possession over the property all these years and therefore, that the stand now taken by the 1st respondent – Tahasildar is illegal and unlawful. She, therefore, prays that said Authority be directed to transfer Registry of the said property in her favour on the strength of Ext. P1 and to allow her to remit land tax on it, from the time which she purchased it.

3. The afore submissions of Sri.E.Mohammed Shafi – learned counsel for the petitioner, were answerd by the learned Senior Government Pleader Smt.K.Amminikutty, saying that a statement has been filed on record on behalf of the 1st respondent, wherein, it has been explained that, on field verification, it was found that the property claimed by the petitioner comes within “surplus land” as determined against the original “jenmi” under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. She pointed out that the total area in the Survey number in question was 1380.14 Acres , out of which the surplus land determined was to be only 21 Acres. She added that, going by the Purchase Certificate, the land in question comes within this 21 Acres and that therefore, it is indubitable that Sri.Abdul Salam had misled the Taluk Land Board by claiming rights over it, which had already been taken possession of as surplus land. She concluded her submission arguing that on verification of the documents and on physical inspection, it has been found that the land was included in the surplus area and thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

4. The afore submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader unfortunately cannot appeal to me fully because, even going by the statement filed on behalf of the Tahsildar, it is clear that Ext.P4 Purchase Certificate has not yet been cancelled and consequently, that it obtains the benefit of the statutory presumption of genuineness under Section 72K of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Obviously, hence, unless it is set aside through a process of law, it is generally not possible for the Tahsildar or the jurisdictional Village OfÏcer to deny the benefit of transfer of Registry in favour of the petitioner or to remit land tax thereon.

5. I am, therefore, of the view that merely because a field verification has found certain factual factors, it would not be justified to deny the benefits under the “patta” to the petitioner, unless it is finally set aside or modified.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the

1st respondnet – Tahsildar to reconsider the application of the petitioner for transfer of Registry of the property in question, on the strength of Exts.P1 and P4 Sale Deed and Purchase Certificate respectively, after affording an opportunity of being heard to him; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible; but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

I, however, make it clear that, 1st respondent will be at full liberty to cause any inspection as may be necessary with respect to physical possession of the property