Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 3112
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
DIJO RAJAN – Appellant
Versus
TAHSILDAR, TALAPPILLY TALUK OFFICE – Respondent
WP(C)/7589/2018
SRI.S.VINOD BHAT, KUM.ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN, SRI.LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL, SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHIS GEORGE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.R.T.PRADEEP, SRI.SHIHABUDEEN, SMT.M.BINDUDAS, SRI.K.C.HARISH, SRI.SIJU RAJAN
Administrative corrections in land records do not confer ownership and must be settled in civil court.
Headnote:
Property - Writ Petition - Ext.P9 - Court evaluated the legality of administrative corrections in land records and affirmed that such corrections do not confer title, emphasizing the necessity of establishing ownership through competent jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, claiming ownership of property under a registered partition deed, faced illegal claims from respondents who sought to correct land records, prompting a writ petition to challenge administrative actions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the administrative actions in correcting land records were valid and did not infringe upon the petitioner's rights, as the correct procedures were followed, and the issue of title was not addressed within these corrections.
Issues: Whether the correction of entries in the Basic Tax Register constitutes an illegal action that affects the petitioner's ownership rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that administrative corrections in land records do not determine ownership and that any dispute regarding title must be resolved through competent civil courts.
Final Decision: Writ petition dismissed with clarifications on title claims remaining open for adjudication.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 06th day of October, 2021 The petitioner claims to be in possession of certain items of property covered by a registered, Partition Deed, bearing No.1357/2007, of SRO Kunnamkulam, namely Ext.P1. He points that one of the various items of immovable property scheduled in the said document is the subject matter in this writ petition and that it is shown as item no. 2 of D schedule thereof.
2. The petitioner asserts that he has been in full ownership and possession of the property from 17/05/2007 and that Transfer of its Registry was effected in his name, which enabled him to have remitted land tax on the same, as is evident from Exts.P2 and P3. He says that, however, respondents 3 and 4 illegally staked a claim over the property in question and filed O.S.No.611/2011 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Wadakancherry, the copy of the plaint in which has been produced as Ext.P5. He further says that respondents 3 and 4 filed I.A 2678/2011 in the said suit, seeking an order of injunction against him from entering the property in question, but that, same was dismissed through Ext.P6 order, finding clearly that he and his father were in possession of the same. He then points out that, as is evident from Ext.P7, the suit was thereafter abandoned by respondents 3 and 4 and was dismissed through the said order, recording that the counsel has reported that he has no instructions to continue to prosecute the same.
3. The petitioner then submitted that respondents 3 and 4 thereafter approached the 1st respondent seeking that the Survey Nos. in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) with respect to the property be corrected and that said Authority issued Ext.P9 order, without even hearing him. The petitioner contends that Ext.P9 is illegal and travels beyond the declarations in Ext.P6 order; and therefore, that same is liable to be set aside by this Court.
-
4. I have heard Sri.Vinod Bhat learned counsel for -
the petitioner; Sri.R.T Pradeep learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George –
learned Government Pleader.
-
5. Sri. R.T.Pradeep learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4, pointed out that Ext.P9 cannot be challenged by the petitioner, because it is only a consequential order issued pursuant to Ext.R3(f) proceedings issued by the District Collector, wherein, directions were issued to correct the Basic Tax Register, by substituting Survey No. 564/1 with the correct Survey number namely, 569/1,2. He submitted that this order of the District Collector has been confirmed by the Land Revenue Commissioner, which is evident from the endorsements contained in Ext. R3(i), and thus contended that this writ petition is not maintainable.
6. As an alternative contention, Sri.R.T.Pradeep submitted that, even if the action pursuant to Ext.P9 is taken forward, it would cause no prejudice to the petitioner, since only the record in the BTR is being corrected and that same will not offer title to any person, including his clients, except if they are able to establish it through law. He concluded his submissions saying that, in fact, his client has already been allowed to remit tax on the property pursuant to Ext.P9; and therefore, reiteratingly prayed that this writ petition be not considered any further.
7. The learned Government Pleader – Sri. Rajeev Jyothish George, submitted that the disputes between the parties are beyond the realm of the official respondents and that they are only concerned about the correctness of the entries in the Revenue Records. He pointed out that, as is luculent from Ext.R3(f) proceedings of the District Collector, he had issued the said order relying upon a report of the Deputy Director of Survey, who had recommended the correction, finding that when the BTR had been settled, there was a mistake in it while recording the original Survey number of re-survey 71/7, which is, in fact, 569/1,2 and not 564/1, as has been marked therein. The learned Government Pleader, therefore, prayed that
