THANKAMMA JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is against the steps taken by the respondents, particularly the 2nd respondent, in proceeding against the properties belonging to the petitioners covered by Exts. P1 to P5 sale deeds / settlement deeds, in respect of the amounts allegedly due from one Mr. Abu, who reportedly owed huge amounts to the Government by way of arrears of Agricultural Income Tax. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

(2.) The father of the first petitioner (grand father of the petitioners 2 to 6) was a cultivating tenant in respect of the property in question and one Mr. Kooleri Valia Peedikayil Muhammed Kunhi was the jenmi. When the application preferred before the Land Tribunal for assigning the land in question was rejected by the said authority, the father of the first petitioner had approached this Court by filing OP No. 6811 of 1982. Pursuant to the direction given by the Court, it was reported by the authorized officer that the petitioner's father was in possession of the holding for more than 25 years and as such, the petition under S.72MM of the KLR Act, 1963 was maintainable (para.1 of Ext. P6). It was further held in para.4 of the very same verdict that the real owner (the first respondent in OP 6811/1982) had actually conceded that the petitioner therein was in possession of the holding as a cultivating tenant and as such entitled to the assignment of the right, title and interest of the land owner. It was in the said circumstance, that the order passed by the Land Tribunal was set aside and the Land Tribunal was directed by this Court to pass appropriate orders assigning the right, title and interest of the land owner in respect of the holding, in favour of the petitioner in the OP. Admittedly Ext. P6 judgment passed by this Court declaring the rights and liberties of the petitioner therein has not been subjected to challenge so far. On other hand, it was pursuant to the said verdict, that the Land Tribunal issued Ext. P7 Assignment Certificate (Patta) on 13/02/1989 in favour of the concerned petitioner, whereby all the rights and interest including ownership, possession and title were conveyed to the said person. It was accordingly, that the property was subsequently conveyed by the said person (father of the present petitioners) as per Ext. P1 to P5 settlement deed / sale deeds dated 27/10/1992. This being the position, the case of the petitioners that they are having absolute ownership, exclusive possession and clear marketable title over the property in question cannot be doubted in any manner.

(3.) In the meanwhile, the present respondents initiated steps against the petitioners under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act. As per Exts. P8 and P9 notices which show that the amount specified therein was due to the Government from one Mr. T. T. P. Abu @ Abdulla, South Trikaripur Village and that the property being enjoyed by the petitioners was liable to be proceeded with, since according to the respondents, as per the basic tax register, it actually belonged to the said defaulter by name Abu. It is also stated that the conveyance if any, was hit by the mandate under S.44 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Met with the said circumstances, the petitioners challenged Exts. P8 and P9 by filing WP (C) No. 33689/2000 before this Court which invited Ext. P10 judgment. After hearing both sides, this Court specifically directed the 2nd respondent Tahsildar to ascertain whether the defaulter had made any transaction by sale or otherwise to avoid recovery and if so, to consider the next question as to the validity of the sale with reference to the provisions of the AIT Act and RR Act; to be followed by further consequential steps, if the transaction were invalid. It was allegedly in compliance of the said direction, that Ext. P11 claim petition filed by the petitioners was considered by the 2nd respondent leading to Ext. P12 order; whereby it is simply said that the property actually belonged to the defaulter Shri. T. T. P. Abu and hence that the transaction involving acquisition of the right under the KLR Act was clearly hit by S.44 of the Revenue Recovery Act. The 2nd respondent held as per Ext. 12 order that, despite issuance of notice to the parties concerned, only the petitioners turned up, but they did not produce requisite materials to substantiate their case and hence that further steps were liable to be proceeded against, to recover the property and realize the due amount.