IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 17048 of 2010(E) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. SUHRA HARIS KOYA, W/O.LATE HARIS KOYA, VAYALIL HOUSE, BIG BAZAR, KOLLAM. 2. NOWFEL KOYA, S/O.LATE HARIS KOYA, VAYALIL HOUSE, BIG BAZAR, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SRI.P.N.APPUKUTTAN SMT.P.A.RINUSA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTUKKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ITTIVA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 5. MR.E.SHANAVAS KHAN, ADVOCATE RECEIVER, DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU R-5 BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2010, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 21756 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ WP(C).No. 17048 of 2010(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/01/2003 IN I.A.7/03 IN IP.NO.3/1100(M.E.). P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/07/2002 IN WPC.NO.2092/2004. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/10/2002 IN I.A.NO.2122/2002 IN I.P.3/1100 (M .E.). P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/10/2008 IN I.A.NO.1598/2008 IN IP.NO.3/1100 (ME). P5: COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN MADHAYAM DAILY DATED 30/05/2010. P6: COPY OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLISHED BY ONE SMT.MERCY JOSEPH, IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 20/07/2010. (I.A.NO.14009/2010). P6: COPY OF ORDER DATED 06/02/2002 IN TIP-1/92 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.(I.A.NO.17155/2010). RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1: COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATES AND TAX RECEIPTS. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J -------------------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos. 17048 of 2010 & 21756 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT Prayers sought in the writ petition No.17048/2010 are to quash Ext.P5 and to direct respondents 1 to 4 not to receive tax or issue possession certificate in relation to any of the properties included in I.P.No.3/1100 (ME) pending before the Additional Sub Court, Kollam. 2. I.P.No.3/1100 (ME) was filed by one Koya Kunju who had extensive properties which were scheduled in the said proceedings. The pleadings show that the properties of the insolvent were handed over to the Official Receiver, District Court, Kollam. Subsequently, all the creditors were paid off and finally the insolvency proceedings were annulled by the court by its order dated 23.11.1960. 3. The remaining properties which were in the hands of the Receiver ought to have been returned to the legal heirs of the insolvent. It would appear that many of the legal heirs of the insolvent also got themselves impleaded in I.P.No.3/1100 (ME). According to the petitioners, while the proceedings are thus pending, they came to know that strangers who trespassed into the properties of the insolvent were attempting to register sale W.P.(C).Nos. 17048 of 2010 & 21756 of 2010 2 deeds and other documents of title. This was brought to the notice of the Court and the Court passed Ext.P4 order directing that sale deeds shall not be registered except those executed by the Receiver. It is stated that while so, from Ext.P5, a news report, petitioners, who are also legal heirs of the insolvent came to know that the Government have decided to accept tax from the occupants of the properties. It was thereupon that this writ petition was filed with the prayers mentioned above. 4. At the stage of admission, this court passed an interim order restraining the respondents from receiving tax as proposed in Ext.P5 news report. The 1st respondent has filed I.A.No.14009/2010 praying to vacate the interim order and in the affidavit, it is stated that after the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the Land Tribunal had issued a large number of pattas, as regards some of the properties, and a large number of persons are residing in the said properties after obtaining patta issued under Kerala Land Reforms Act. It is also stated that the aforesaid persons have also got mutation effected in the revenue records in their name and were paying basic tax for the respective properties. As specimen, some of the purchase certificates and tax receipts, substantiating this contention has W.P.(C).Nos. 17048 of 2010 & 21756 of 2010 3 been produced which show that purchase certificates were issued in 1973 and that tax was being paid since then. 5. It is stated that however on account of Ext.P1 order passed by the Sub Court in 2003, tax was not being accepted even from persons who had mutated the properties in their names. This issue was considered by the Government and that since Ext.P1 or Ext.P4 orders did not prevent the Government from accepting tax from persons in whose favour properties are already mutated, it was decided to accept tax from such persons. It is therefore stated that the interim order passed by this court affecting a large number of persons should be vacated. 6. First of all, the contention of the Government is that the decision as reflected in Ext.P4 order is to accept basic tax in respect of properties from persons in whose name purchase certificate have been issued by the Land Tribunal and in whose name properties are mutated. It may be true that the land covered by such purchase certificate or mutation are involved in the insolvency proceedings pending before the Sub Court. However fact remains that in respect of those lands, purchase certificate have been issued and mutation has been effected. If anyone aggrieved by such purchase certificates or mutation, their W.P.(C).Nos. 17048 of 2010 & 21756 of 2010 4 remedy is to take recourse to the remedies as available under the Land Reforms Act or the Transfer Registry Rules as the case may be. Not only that such remedies have not been pursued, but such persons in whose favour purchase certificates have been issued or properties mutated, are not parties to this writ petition. Counsel for the petitioners relied on Ext.P6 order of this Court and wanted this court to hold that since the alleged illegal occupants are parties to T1P1/92, the acceptance of tax from them in pursuance to Ext.P5 shall not and not be to their prejudice. In my view, even such an order cannot passed without the affected parties in the party array. In such circumstances, this court will not be justified in preventing the Government from accepting tax as decided by the Government. Therefore, the petitioners cannot seek any relief in this proceedings. 7. However, I clarify that this judgment will not stand in the way of petitioner or anybody else seeking their remedies available in accordance with law. 8. For these reasons, W.P.(C).No. 17048 of 2010 is dismissed. W.P.(C).Nos. 17048 of 2010 & 21756 of 2010 5 9. In so far as W.P.(C).No.21756/2010 is concerned, petitioner claims that in Ext.P1 purchase certificate has been issued in his favour and he has been paying tax in respect of the land and that refusal of the authorities to accept tax is illegal. 10. At present, purchase certificate stands in the name of the petitioner and the property covered by Ext.P1 also stand mutated in favour of the petitioner. If that be so, petitioner is entitled to pay basic tax and the respondents are liable to accept the same. There will be a direction to the respondents to accept tax in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 purchase certificate. W.P.(C).No.21756/2010 is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE dmb