IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 16943 of 2004(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.C. JOSEPH, VELAMKUNNEL HOUSE, PLAPATTA, KADAMPAZHIPURAM VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.GANGESH SRI.JOE JOSEPH KOCHIKUNNEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARATMENT OF REVENUE (N) SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE R.D.O., OTTAPALAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAMPAZHIPURAM VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN FOR R1TO3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC 16943/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS. EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.1594 OF 1978 OF KADAMPAZHIPURAM SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 1978. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD, OTTAPALAM. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 7.11.2003. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER ON 12.1.2004 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 16943 OF 2004-P ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner along with his wife purchased 12.29 acres of land in Survey Nos.41/9A, 41/9B, 40A, 41/1A, 41/1B. 41/1C and 41/6 of Kadampazhipuram Village, Ottapalam Taluk. Ext.P1 is the sale deed, as per which they obtained the aforementioned property. They purchased the said property from the family of one Mr.P.K. Ramankutty Vaidyar, who was a declarant in the ceiling proceedings before the Taluk Land Board, Ottapalam. Ext.P2 is the order passed against the said Ramankutty Vaidyar by the Taluk Land Board, directing him to surrender an extent of 26.51 acres of land. The petitioner claims, he and his wife purchased the property from the portion of the land, which was permitted to be retained by the declarant. The petitioner was paying the land tax regularly till 1997. But, from 1998 onwards, the tax was not accepted. He was told that the property purchased by him and his wife covers excess land to be surrendered by the family of the above mentioned declarant. The said WPC 16943/2004 2 claim of the respondents is untenable, it is submitted. So, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, requesting to receive the tax for his property. He also preferred Ext.P4 representation for surveying and identifying the excess land, which vests in the Government. Though Exts.P3 and P4 complaints were filed, no action was taken on them. Therefore, this Writ Petition was filed, seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent Village Officer to accept land tax in respect of the property owned by the petitioner and his wife, as per Ext.P1 title deed. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in 2006, the Land Reforms Act had been amended by Act 21/2006 and therefore, bona fide purchasers like the petitioner and his wife are saved by that provision, to certain extent. 2. The State has filed a counter affidavit, stating among other things, that the property purchased by the petitioner is part of the excess land, which should be surrendered by the family of the said Ramankutty Vaidyar. The challenge made by the members of the family against the order of the Taluk Land Board was repelled by this Court as well as the Apex Court. So, the proceedings of the Taluk WPC 16943/2004 3 Land Board have become final. When the matter was pending before the Land Board, the petitioner purchased the property in 1978. So, his right over of the property is hit by Section 84 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. 3. The transfer made by the family of the said Ramankutty Vaidyar, if it covers any excess land, will be void to that extent. To what extent the transferred land is part of the excess land surrendered or to be surrendered, is a dispute, which cannot be resolved in these proceedings. The respondents may take over the land covered by Ext.P1, which according to them, is surplus land. If any balance land is remaining in the parcel of land covered by Ext.P1, then the Village Officer shall receive the tax for the same. Steps in this regard shall be completed by respondents 2 and 3 within six months from the date of production/receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioner and his wife are entitled to get the benefit of Act 21/2006, they will be free to pursue their claims. This judgment will not, in any way, affect their WPC 16943/2004 4 rights, if any, in this regard. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. 17th October, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/