Payment of land tax and land mutation do not confer title; such matters are distinct from ownership adjudged by civil courts.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent Village Officer to accept land tax from the petitioner with regard to the property having an extent of 4.95 Ares in Re.Sy.No.165/3A and 3B of Peruvalloor Village, covered by Ext.P1 sale deed bearing No.3539/1991 of Sub Registrar Office, Thenjipalam, and Ext.P2 purchase certificate. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 4th respondent to accept the land tax with respect to the property described in Ext.P1 title deed from the petitioner, while he possesses the same; and also direction to the 4th respondent to issue necessary possession certificate with respect to the property covered by Ext.P1 title deed to the petitioner when he prefer the application for the same.

2. On 07.12.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

3. A statement has been filed by the 3rd respondent opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Paragraphs

4 and 5 of the same read thus:

“4. It is submitted that the Taluk Land Board, Tirurangadi had decided the ceiling as orders dated 18.03.2006, 26.02.2013. As per order dated 18.03.2006, the Taluk Land Board had directed the declarant to surrender 218.52 Acres of land. The petitioner's land was included in the order dated 18.03.2006. The Taluk Land Board order was set aside by the Hon'ble High Court vide judgment dated 12.07.2007 in C.R.P No.601/2006 and directed the Taluk Land Board to pass fresh orders. Accordingly the Taluk Land Board issued revised order dated 26.02.2013 and ordered to surrender 2.291 Acres of excess land from Re.Sy.No.165/3 of Peruvallur Village, among others. The petitioner's land is comprised in Re.Sy.No.165/3.

5. It is submitted that against the ceiling case No.CR 522/73, the legal heirs of declarant approached Hon'ble Court by filing C.R.P No.141/13 and the Hon'ble Court granted stay on 26.03.2013. Now the CRP is under consideration of the Hon'ble Court. In this circumstances the 3rd and 4th respondents are not in a position to accept the basic tax for the property of the petitioner. Further, for a land involved in ceiling case, it is not possible to accept the basic tax without prior permission from the Taluk Land Board concerned.”

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

5. In Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commissioner [(2007)

6 SCC 186] the Apex Court reiterated that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in 'record of rights'. The entries in revenue records or jamabandi have only 'fiscal purpose', i.e., payment of land revenue and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as the title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent Civil Court [vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh (1993) 4 SCC 403].

6. In Sudan K.K. and others v. State of Kerala and others [ 2013 (4) KHC 201 ] this Court held that the pendency of civil suit can ever be a bar with regard to the acceptance of land tax, unless specifically restrained from accepting the tax by virtue of any order passed by the court.

7. InBhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (died through legal heirs) v. Arther Import and Export Company and Others [ (2019) 3 SCC 191 ] the Apex Court reiterated that the law on the question of mutation in the revenue records pertaining to any land and what is its legal value while deciding the rights of the parties is fairly well settled by a series of decisions of this Court. The Court has consistently held that mutation of a land in the revenue records does not create or extinguish the title over such land nor it has any presumptive value on the title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. [see:Sawarni (Smt.) v. Inder Kaur (1996)6 SCC 223, Bal