K.P. Kasim vs State of Kerala

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—Grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the rejection of the claim for effecting mutation, in respect of the property covered by Ext. P1 title deed. The sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition shows that, the property scheduled in Ext. P1, when at the hands of the erstwhile owner, finds a place in the revenue records as having suffered mutation and the predecessor in title was enjoying the said property also paying the basic tax, as borne by Ext. P2. It was the said property that was purchased by the petitioner as per Ext. P1 in April 2012 and he applied for effecting mutation in June 2012. Pursuant to the application preferred by the petitioner before the RDO, the matter was sought to be enquired into, which led to Ext. P4 report submitted by the concerned Revenue authorities, wherein the actual nature of the property has been certified, to the effect that it is lying as a ''dry land'', where a residential building is also stated as situated. Existence of several buildings situated nearby and the availability of rubber trees having more than 20 years are also pointed out. Referring to the said report, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 16911/12, which culminated in Ext. P5 judgment, whereby the second respondent was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders with reference to Ext. P4 report herein (which was produced as Ext. P2 in the said case). The petitioner produced a copy of the judgment along with Ext. P6 submission before the second respondent and after considering the same, Ext. P7 order dated 08.10.2012, came to be passed in the following words :

The petitioner was heard on 07.08.2012, and the site was inspected on 07.08.2012 during the inspection, the plot is found with a house (concrete house) of around 1200 sq. ft. The area was once a paddy land as per Village records. Hence it is clear that the conversion had taken place years back without proper permission. The contention of the party is that the plot is a ''purayidom'' and not fit for cultivation. Site inspection gave a feelings that the plot was made unfit for cultivation since it was filled up in the past, of course without valid permission.

In its judgment on 14.08.12 in W.P.(C) 32724/07, the Hon''ble High Court has observed that the provisions of the KLU order 1967 of Act 28 of 2008 has to be used to protect the agricultural operations and not to waive a green flage for conversion. Also the Hon''ble court has observed that there is no provision in KLU order 1967 explicitly permitting the construction of a building (both prospectively or retrospectively) in a plot described as ''Nilam'' in basic revenue records.

Considering these aspects, it is found that the application of the petitioner does not have any merit and it is just a request to regularize an illegal activity which goes directly against the interest of the State in the filed of agriculture. Hence the request of the petitioner vide reference 1st cited is hereby rejected.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext. P7 has been passed by the second respondent in total disregard to the contents of Ext. P4 report and the relevant provisions of law.

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. It has been held by this Court as per the decision reported in Praveen Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner, that, merely for the reason that, the property has been described as ''Nilam'' in the Revenue Records, it will not dis-entitle the person concerned to have the property enjoyed in the manner as it now stands after suffering the conversion occurred years back. It was held that, the physical nature of the property had to be inspected before passing final orders. This Court had occasion to consider the matter again and the position has been reiterated as per the decision reported in Jalaja Dileep Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and others, , following the verdict passed by the Division Bench. It is seen from Exts. P4 and P7 that, the property concerned was physically inspected and it no more continues as a ''wet land'' but remains as a ''purayidom''. That apart, the mutation had already been effected in respect of the said property in the name of the previous title holder, as borne by Ext. P2 tax receipt. As it stands so, this Court finds that, the petitioner is also entitled to succeed and there is no point in refusing to effect the mutation in the name of the petitioner, who is the present title holder.

In the above circumstance, Ext. P7 is set aside and the second respondent is directed to pass necessary orders effecting the mutation, effecting necessary entries in the revenue records. The concerned revenue authorities shall accept the basic tax in respect of the property from the petitioner, as and when the same is surrendered.

The writ petition is allowed. No costs.