Revenue authorities cannot refuse property registry transfers based solely on title doubts; tax collection is independent of property ownership issues.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17th day of September, 2021 The petitioners, who claim ownership rights over a property comprised of in survey No.843/1A7 of Perunadu Village on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2, have approached this Court seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent, to effect its Transfer of Registry in their name and to permit them to remit the land tax on it, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. Sri. K.N.Radhakrishnan-learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that, even though, there is no contest to the title of his clients and no cloud has been brought thereon by anyone, the 3rd respondent is refusing to effect Transfer of Registry or to allow them to remit tax on it, without assigning any valid or cogent reason. He, therefore, reiteratingly prays that this writ petition be allowed.

3. On the contrary, the learned Government Pleader, Smt.K.Amminikutty, submitted that 3rd respondent has been incapacitated from effecting Transfer of Registry of the property because, in Exts.P1 and P2, derivation of the title of vendor has not been shown at all. She pointed out that, what is stated therein, is that the vendor has obtained it by 'favour of God'. She submitted that, therefore, this Court may not allow this writ petition.

4. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the submissions of the learned Government Pleader, because, the question as to whether the Tahasildar has the right to verify derivation of title, while effecting Transfer of Registry or while permitting remittance of the land tax, has already been decided at least in two judgments of this Court, namely, inKuriakose Elias Trust for Communication and Development v. Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Others 2009 (2) KHC 602 and Marunnoli Vijayalakshmi and Others v. Tahsildar, Koyilandi Taluk and Others 2019 (1) KHC 142.

5. The affirmative declarations of law in these judgments is that the Revenue Authorities cannot refuse Transfer of Registry solely on the ground that the vendor did not have the right to alienate the property and that acceptance of tax is only a fiscal matter, which does not relate to the title of the property.

I am in respectful affirmation with the afore judgments and am, consequently, of the view that petitioners are entitled to the reliefs, particularly, when the learned Senior Government Pleader only says that there is a suspicion regarding the title of the vendor.

Resultantly, being guided by the afore judgments, I allow this writ petition and direct the 3rd respondent to effect Transfer of Registry of the property in favour of the petitioners as per Exts.P1 and P2 and to permit them to remit the land tax as per law, if there are no other legal impediments.

The afore exercise shall be completed by the 3rd respondent without any delay, but not later than 2 weeks from the date on which the petitioners approach the said officer with the amount required towards the tax.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

NR/17/09/2021

APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 1518/2018 OF PERUNADU SRO DATED 21.12.2018.

EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.802/2018 OF PERUNADU SRO DATED 26.06.2018.

EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.06.2020 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, PERUNADU IN THE NAME OF VENDOR OF EXHIBIT P1 AND P2 EXHIBIT P4 THE RELEVANT COPY OF THANDAPER REGISTER OF PERUNADU VILLAGE, IN THE NAME OF PARAVEEN PERUMAL.

// TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE