Lathakumari vs Velappan

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

These Writ Appeals are filed challenging the common judgment dated 23.07.2019 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 28476 of 2018 and W.P.(C) No.17833 of 2018. Appellants in W.A.No.2043 of 2019 were the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.28476 of 2018 and the sole appellant in WA No.2014 of 2019 was the 3rd respondent in WP(C) No.17833 of 2018.

Rights over an extent of property situated in Attipra Village in Thiruvananthapuram District is the subject matter of dispute in both the W.P.(C)s. While, W.P.(C) No.28476 of 2018, has been filed by a mother and son viz., Smt.Lathakumari and Sri.Sankar Kishan, seeking to quash Ext.P12 Order issued by the District Collector whereby the concerned Tahsildar (LR) was directed to act upon and dispose of within one month the application preferred by one Sri. Velappan seeking mutation of certain land in his favour, thus enabling him to remit the tax with respect to the same, the other W.P.(C) viz., W.P.(C) No.17833 of 2018 had been filed by the said Sri.Velappan seeking a direction to expedite the implementation of the selfsame Order of the District Collector (Ext.P12) which he has produced as Ext.P4 in his W.P.(C).

The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, had disposed of both the W.P.(C)s, vide common judgment holding that if there is a dispute regarding the title or interest in the subject land, parties ought to approach the competent civil court and the Tahsildar cannot disturb any possession of the land by the parties based on cancellation or restoration of the thandaper register. It was further held that the directions issued by the District Collector shall be concluded within three months after hearing both parties and after adverting to the nature of possession over the land based on the title deeds. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment also directed that if any land belonging to Smt.Lathakumari and Sri.Sankar Kishan is seen included in the thandaper register of Sri.Velappan, the same has to be cancelled and if it is found that Sri.Velappan is in possession of such land, basic tax shall not be accepted from Smt.Lathakumari and Sri.Sankar Kishan, until the competent Civil Court decides the matter.

Thus the learned Single Judge had disposed of both the writ petitions holding that after due identification of the property based on the title deed and possession, proceedings based on the directions issued by the District Collector in Ext.P12 shall be concluded within a period of three months. It was held that the acceptance of basic tax from the parties would depend upon the outcome of such inquiry to be made.

Smt.Lathakumari and Sri.Sankar Kishan has preferred the above Writ Appeals, apprehending that the direction of the learned Single Judge would have the effect of reopening the entire issues between the parties and that it may unsettle the status and benefits that had enured upon them vide Exts.P5, P6 and P7 whereby the transfer of registry of the relevant extent of property effected to Sri.Velappan had been already cancelled and the property was restored to them pursuant to which tax was being remitted in their names. Appellants contend that the learned Single Judge issued directions beyond the scope of the prayers sought in the W.P.(C)s and the direction in the judgment would lead to the redoing of the entire exercise which stood completed vide Exts.P5, P6 and P7.

We heard Sri.S.Sreekumar, Senior Advocate instructed by Sri.R.T.Pradeep, on behalf of the appellants and Smt.S.Majida on behalf of the party respondent. The learned Government Pleader was also heard on behalf of the official respondents.

The crux of the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel is that in so far as the legality of Exts.P5, P6 and P7 had never been impugned before the learned Single Judge by any of the parties, the direction issued in the penultimate part of the judgment that the Tahsildar shall carry out due identification of the property based on the title deed and possession, has the implication of undoing the result of Exts.P5, P6 and P7. Sri.Velappan (R7), the learned Senior Counsel contends, can have a claim, if any, only over an extent of 5 cents of land. His illegal action of appropriating to himself in revenue records around 70 cents of land had been rectified pursuant to Exts.P5, P6 and P7 after an arduous process. The steps to be undertaken by the Tahsildar pursuant to the learned Single Judge’s direction shall not have the effect of redoing the whole exercise of cancellation of Thandaper and render otiose Exts.P5, P6 and P7 and the creation of sub-divisions pursuant to the same, submits the learned Senior Counsel.

Per contra the learned counsel for the party respondent (R7) Sri.Velappan submits that the relevant extent of property continues to be in the possession of her client and that Exts.P5, P6 and P7 cannot have the effect of altering the title which she contends, is vested in her client. She submits that mention in Ext. P5 Order issued by the RDO that ‘rights over the property in possession of R7 should not be disturbed’ effectively affirms her client's right to get the entire property in his possession mutated in his name in the revenue records. The learned counsel would thus submit that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not call for interference and seeks to dismiss the Writ Appeals.

We note that the learned Single Judge has not interfered with Exts.P5, P6 and P7 and has only directed that steps pursuant to Ext.P12 issued by the District Collector shall be concluded within three months after hearing the parties and after adverting to the nature of possession over the land based on the title deeds. Though there is a reference in Ext.P12 to an extent of 73 cents of land, we note that in so far as Exts.P5, P6 and P7 have already led to the cancellation of the earlier mutations and to the re-instation of the relevant extents of lands as well as the creation of sub-divisions, the apprehension that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge might unsettle Exts.P5, P6 and P7 is out of place. The findings in Exts.P5, P6 and P7 have not been challenged and the conclusions therein relating to cancellation of earlier mutations and creation of subdivisions have become final. Hence the proceedings in furtherance of Ext.P12 cannot disturb the consequences and changes in mutation effected pursuant to Exts.P5, P6 and P7.

As regards the titular rights over the respective parcels of property, it is trite law that mere mutation of land in the revenue records does not confer title. The Supreme Court in P.Kishore Kumar v. Vittal K.Patkar [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1483], after a survey of the precedents on the point, affirmed that mere mutation of records would not divest the owners of a land of their right, title and interest in the land and held that decreeing a suit by placing on a higher probative pedestal the revenue entries is erroneous. Disputes regarding title can only be fully and finally decided through appropriate civil proceedings. The learned Single Judge has thus held that if the land belonging to Smt.Lathakumari and Sri.Sankar Kishan (petitioners in W.P.(C) No.28476 of 2018) is seen included in the thandaper register of Sri.Velappan (Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17833 of 2018), the same is to be cancelled, and if it is found that the latter is in possession, basic tax shall not be accepted from the former, until a Civil Court decides on the question of title. The learned Single Judge has thus correctly found that if there is a dispute regarding the title or interest in the subject land, parties ought to approach the competent Civil Court and the Tahsildar cannot disturb any possession of the land by the parties based on cancellation or restoration of the thandaper register.

In light of the above, we dispose of the above appeals affirming the findings of the learned Single Judge, however clarifying that the concerned Tahsildar (LR) while proceedings to comply with the directions issued by the District Collector in Ext.P12, shall not interfere with or unsettle the findings/conclusions arrived at in Exts.P5, P6 and P7. Proceedings pursuant to Ext.P12 as directed by the learned Single Judge shall confine to and must be undertaken after taking due note of the earlier mutations and creation of sub-divisions as evidenced in Exts.P5, P6 and P7. However, possession of the properties shall not be unsettled in such proceedings and all questions regarding title and interest over the property between the parties shall be decided in appropriate civil proceedings.

The time period of three months granted in the judgment of the learned Single Judge for concluding proceedings based on the directions issued by the District Collector is extended and shall now commence from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Writ Appeals are disposed of as above. No costs.