IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 29498 of 2008(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- SHRI.RADHEY GOVIND INFRADEV PRIVATE LIMITED., REGISTERED OFFICE AT 14, NEW RAJDHANI ENCLAVE, PREET VIHAR, DELHI REPRESENTED BY SHRI.K.JOHN KURUVILLA, S/O.LATE SHRI.K.K.JOHN, R/AT 12-B, RDS NEDUNGADAN RESIDENCY,CHITTOOR ROAD, KACHERIPADY, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN (PALAKKAD) SRI.P.K.NIJOY RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PARUR. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALANGAD VILLAGE, PARUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH – R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/11/2008 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 29497 OF 2008 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) Nos.29497,29498,29499,29500,29501, 29502, 29503, 29504, 29505 and 29506 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 28th November, 2008 J U D G M E N T All these writ petitions have been heard together since the order impugned in these cases is the same. Contentions of the parties are also common. I will refer to the facts in WPC No.29498 of 2008 and directions issued therein will govern the other petitioners also. 1. Petitioner is a Limited Company having its registered office at New Delhi. Company purchased an extent of 1181.602 cents of land in Alangad village as per Exhibit P6 sale deed. The company was represented in this behalf by one Sri.Viswanathan Arangath who was authorized to represent the company as per Exhibit-P2 resolution passed by its Board of Directors. Sale deeds executed in this behalf are Exhibits P3 to P8. Pursuant to Exhibits P3 to P8, company sought for mutation of property in the revenue records. Mutation was effected W.P ( C) Nos.29497,29498,29499,29500,29501, 29502, 29503, 29504, 29505 and 29506 of 2008 2 and basic tax was paid by the purchaser as per Exhibit P9 series. Exhibit -P10 series Possession certificate was also issued. But later when basic tax for the subsequent period 2008-2009 sought to be remitted, it was not accepted by the 4th respondent, who supplied the petitioner with Exhibit P11 order issued by the 3rd respondent. Exhibit P11 has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. Exhibit P11 states that a total extent of 91.3 (approximately) acres of land was purchased by the petitioner and the other petitioners. One person had represented ten companies it is suspected that purchase was effected by one single person. Since the total extent of land purchased is in excess of the maximum permissible limit that could held by one single person, under Section 83 r/w 87 of the Land Reforms Act, contravention of the ceiling provisions is suspected. Pursuant to a direction in this regard by the Revenue Secretary, mutation already effected was temporarily cancelled. It is Exhibit P11 which has been challenged in this writ petition as already stated above. W.P ( C) Nos.29497,29498,29499,29500,29501, 29502, 29503, 29504, 29505 and 29506 of 2008 3 3. This Court passed an interim order on 7.10.2008 to the following effect. Issue notice on admission by Special Messenger to 1st respondent. No notice need be issued to other respondents at this stage. The order impugned in these cases is a common one passed by the Tahsildar, Parur cancelling the mutation effected in favour of the petitioners in each of these cases. Normally I would have relegated the petitioners to avail the alternate remedy which is available under the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules. But there is an allegation that orders have been passed by the Tahasildar pursuant to instructions given in that regard by the Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department. In these circumstances, I think it is appropriate that the Principal Secretary to Revenue Department files an affidavit in so far as it relates to the correctness of the order passed by the Tahasildar dated 8.2.2008 and 9.2.2008. Affidavit to be filed on or before 28.10.2008.” 4. Pursuant thereto a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. It is contended therein that the Addl. Director General of police(Intelligence) had sent a letter on 4.12.2007 to the Government stating that one M/s. Vayu Builders & Developers (P) Ltd had purchased “Kundely” paddy fields approximating about 110 acres W.P ( C) Nos.29497,29498,29499,29500,29501, 29502, 29503, 29504, 29505 and 29506 of 2008 4 under 23 documents registered in the Alangad Sub Registrar Office. That it was suspected that though purchase has been effected by ten different companies, transactions are seen to be effected in the name of one single person who has been authorized by these companies. That the land is lying as one contiguous property. It was also suspected that the transactions were benami transactions. That the sale deeds were executed in favour of one single person representing ten different companies, paragraphs 7 and 10 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: “7. It is humbly submitted that the Government suspected that all these transactions were binami transactions since all the sale deeds were executed by the same person who is the authorised signatory of all the companies. It is also reported that the lands are paddy fields. The Government also feel that the source of income for these transactions have to be verified. 10. The Tahasildar also reported that there is possibility that puramboke land also is included within the scheduled boundaries of the land purchased by these companies. The Tahasildar also stated that one Mrs.Reetu Agarwal who is the Director of Sarin & Sarin Investments (P) Ltd submitted a letter on 30.06.2008 requesting W.P ( C) Nos.29497,29498,29499,29500,29501, 29502, 29503, 29504, 29505 and 29506 of 2008 5 for revocation of the temporary cancellation of mutation in respect of all the 10 companies together, not for her single company alone. Hence he apprehends that these transactions are binami transactions. The Tahasildar also reported that in the communications of these companies the addresses shown were different each time.” 5. Thereafter, the deponent goes on to say that if the transactions are found to be genuine and legal, the cancellation of mutation will be withdrawn and mutation will be restored. 6. I heard Sri.S.M.Prem, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.N.Santhosh, learned Government Pleader. 7. Sale deeds are seem to be executed in favour of 10 different companies. Though one person has represented these companies in the course of verifying whether there is infraction of the ceiling provisions of the Land Reforms Act, it would be open to the Government to verify whether the purchasers are 10 different entities with reference to the source of consideration for these W.P ( C) Nos.29497,29498,29499,29500,29501, 29502, 29503, 29504, 29505 and 29506 of 2008 6 transactions and whether the purchasers as such are 10 different entities. 8. In my view, Exhibit P11 order impugned in these writ petitions need only be treated as a show cause notice. But considering the extent of the property and the gravity of the allegations which are now raised and resisted by the petitioners, I am of the view that an enquiry as now proposed should be conducted at the level of the District Collector. 9. Accordingly, the District Collector, Ernakulam within whose jurisdiction the lands in question are situated, shall issue a show cause notice to the petitioner indicating the grounds on which the mutation is proposed to be cancelled/refused. Said show cause notice shall be issued within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the petitioners shall given an opportunity to file objections thereto within three weeks thereafter. Then the District Collector shall take note of the objections filed by petitioners and pass a reasoned order. If the District Collector comes to the conclusion that W.P ( C) Nos.29497,29498,29499,29500,29501, 29502, 29503, 29504, 29505 and 29506 of 2008 7 the purchase of the property effected under the sale deeds, claimed by the petitioners in these writ petitions should be treated as a purchase effected by one single person then the same would contravene the ceiling provisions of the Land Reforms Act. If the District Collector comes to the conclusion that purchase has been effected by 10 different legal entities/ legal persons then obviously the mutation already effected shall be restored. Orders shall be passed by the District Collector after due enquiry within three months from the date on which the objections are filed by the respective petitioners. It will be open to the petitioners to produce copies of the writ petition along with objections filed by them in that regard. Writ petitions are disposed of as above. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) Nos.29497,29498,29499,29500,29501, 29502, 29503, 29504, 29505 and 29506 of 2008 8 W.P ( C) Nos.29497,29498,29499,29500,29501, 29502, 29503, 29504, 29505 and 29506 of 2008 9