JUDGMENT : 1. The prayers in the aforementioned Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P7 order and quash the original of the same. (ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to accept basic tax for the entire extent of land owned by the petitioner in T.S.9.9.302/2. 9.10.334/2 of the Nagaram Village in Kozhikode Taluk of Kozhikode District. (iii) Issue such other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the above case.” 2. Heard Sri.S.Nirmal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of property of 7.75 cents obtained by him as per Ext.P-1 document No.2746/04 of S.R.O., Chalapuram. It is stated that the said property was settled in his name by his mother. Earlier his mother had acquired the said property by registered leasehold right by Ext.P-2 document No.2156/1987 of S.R.O., Chalapuram and as per Ext.P-3 release deed No.2192/87 of S.R.O., Chalapuram, the petitioner's mother acquired absolute occupation of 2.25 cents of land as karaima as per the above said document. The petitioner's mother had applied for assignment of the appurtenant land as beneficial enjoyment under Sec.54 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The said application was made as per Act 16/1989 and Act 21/1999. By Ext.P-4 order dated 22.6.2000 rendered by the Land Tribunal, Kozhikode, the abovesaid application filed by the mother was allowed and purchase certificate was issued thereby in respect of 8.15 cents of land. Petitioner's mother claimed to be in occupation of 2.25 cents of land as karaima and 7.75 cents of appurtenant land as beneficial enjoyment. The petitioner's mother was issued Ext.P-5 purchase certificate dated 10.10.2000 by the Land Tribunal, Kozikode for a total extent of 8.15 cents. It appears that the said 8.15 cents of land comprised of 5.90 cents of land by way of beneficial enjoyment and 2.25 cents by way of karaima thus totalling to 8.15 cents. It is thereafter that the petitioner's mother had assigned the said property to the petitioner as per Ext.P-1 document No.2746/04. Thereupon, the petitioner had paid tax as per Ext.P-5 land tax receipt for 7.75 cents, which appears to be the actual land area of actual measurement in the field. 4. It is thereafter that the petitioner's mother had assigned the said property to the petitioner as per Ext.P-1 document No.2746/04. Thereupon, the petitioner had paid tax as per Ext.P-5 land tax receipt for 7.75 cents, which appears to be the actual land area of actual measurement in the field. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent-Village Officer for paying basic land tax, upon which the said officer has refused to accept it. Thereafter, the petitioner made request to the Tahsildar for permission to remit tax. The 1st respondent later considered the matter and by the impugned Ext.P-7 order dated 7.9.2017 has rejected the request of the petitioner to pay land tax for the above said extent of land on the ground that Act No.21/1999 has been struck down by a Division Bench of this Court as unconstitutional and unenforceable as per judgment dated 20.8.2003 in O.P.No.4575/2001 and connected cases in Ratna Bai v. State of Kerala, reported in 2004 (1) KLT 632 . It is this order at Ext.P-7 that is under challenge in this Writ Proceedings. 5. 'Karaima' is defined under clause (2) of Sec.(23A) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The definition has been inserted as per Act 35 of 1969.In the original Act of 1963, the definition of 'karaima' was not separately defined. The Act 35 of 1969 defined 'karaima' as follows:- “Sec. 2 (23A):- 'Karaima' means a transfer of land situate in Kozhikode District or in Ponnani Taluk of Malappuram District, in consideration of ground rent, principally for the purpose of erecting a homestead and described as 'Karaima' in the document, if any, evidencing the transfer.” Along with clause (23A) of Sec.2, definition of 'tenant' defined in Sec.57(2) was expanded so as to include holder of 'karaima' by inserting subsec. (hhh) of Sec.57(2). Sec.13 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act gives right to the tenants to 'fixity of tenure' and Sec.53 gives the right to the cultivating tenants who are entitled to 'fixity of tenure' to purchase the landlord's rights by Act No.35/1969 which came into force with effect from 1.1.1970. The right of purchase was also given to the holders of 'karaima'. Sec.72 thereof provides for vesting of landlord's rights in the Government as per the said provision. In view of secs.72 and 53, such karaima holders have got a right to purchase the karaima holding. The right of purchase was also given to the holders of 'karaima'. Sec.72 thereof provides for vesting of landlord's rights in the Government as per the said provision. In view of secs.72 and 53, such karaima holders have got a right to purchase the karaima holding. An explanation and proviso was added to clause 23A of the Act by virtue of Act No.16/1989 with effect from 30.5.1989 giving an additional right to karaima holders to purchase the land in their possession as on 24.1.1989 which is appurtenant to the karaima land as described in the document. “Explanation” appended as per Act No.16/1989 reads as follows: “Explanation : For the purpose of this clause, so much of the land appurtenant to the land under the Karaima belonging to the landlord or any person claiming through him and in the possession and beneficial enjoyment of the Karaima holder or his legal representative or any other person claiming through him as on 24th day of January, 1989 shall subject to a maximum of 3 cents in Corporation area, 5 cents in Municipal area and 10 cents in Panchayat area, inclusive of the land under the karaima be deemed to be karaima. Provided that where the extent of the land appurtenant in the possession and beneficial enjoyment is in excess of the extent specified above as on the 24th day of January, 1989, such land shall also be deemed to be karaima.” It is common ground that Act 16/1989 was included in the 9th schedule to the Constitution of India and therefore the said provision is not open to constitutional challenge. Thereafter by Act No.21/1999, the provisions of the Land Reforms Act were again amended and definition of 'karaima' was substituted and refined as follows: “Sec. 2(23A)— 'Karaima' means a transfer of land in Kozhikode District or in the Malappuram District in consideration of ground rent principally for the purpose of erecting a homestead and described in the document if any evidencing the transfer as 'Karaima' or 'Panaya Pattom', 'Panaya Chit' or by whatever name called which possesses the characteristics of 'Karaima'. Explanation: For the purpose of this clause so much of the land appurtenant to the land under the Karaima belonging to the landlord or any person claiming through him and in the possession and beneficial enjoyment of the Karaima holder or his legal representative or any other person claiming through him as on the 1st day of January, 1970 shall subject to a maximum of 3 cents in Municipal Corporation area, 5 cents in Municipal council area and 10 cents in Panchayat area, inclusive of the land under Karaima be deemed to be Karaima. Provided that where the extent of land appurtenant in the possession and beneficial enjoyment is in excess of the extent specified above as on the 1st day of January 1970, such land shall also be deemed to be 'Karaima'. Special provision for the issue of certificate of purchase- Notwithstanding anything contrary contained in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (a of 1964) (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act) or in any other law for the time being in force or in any judgment, decree or order of any court or any authority or tribunal the Karaima holder or his legal representative or any other person claiming through him who is entitled to get the fixity of tenure under Section 13 of the Principal Act in respect of any land as per the explanation to clause (23A) of Section 2 may apply to such authority as may be authorized by the Government in this behalf within a period of six months from the date of publication of this Act in the Gazette or within such time as may be extended in this behalf by notification in the Gazette for the issue of certificate of purchase of the said land and such authority may issue the certificate of purchase and restore the possession to such person the said land free from all encumbrances if any created by the land owners and intermediaries and subsisting on the date of publication of this Act in the Gazette.” Act No.21/99 was challenged by some of the aggrieved land owners concerned before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court as per the afore stated judgment dated 20.8.2003 in the case in Ratna Bai v. State of Kerala, reported in 2004 (1) KLT 632 had struck down Act No.21/1999. However, it is clearly held by the Division Bench of this Court that previous amendment made to the Land Reforms Act as per Act No.16/1989 is immune from any constitutional challenge in view of the inclusion of that legislative instrument in the 9th schedule of the Constitution of India. Further it was held by this Court that Act No.21/1999 does not have the same constitutional protection and it also cannot claim the protection under Article 31A inasmuch as it cannot be said to be legislation for agrarian reforms. 6. In the present case, the petitioner's mother had applied for purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal in terms of the provisions contained in Act.No.16/1989 and Act No.21/1999. The Land tribunal, exercising its powers had rendered Ext.P-4 order dated 20.6.2000 whereby her plea was allowed to purchase 8.15 cents in the above said survey number for which Ext.P-5 purchase certificate was issued on 10.10.2000 in respect of 8.15 cents of land. It is thereafter, that the property in question was assigned in favour of the petitioner as per Ext.P-1 deed. The petitioner also does not dispute the fact that actual field verification and measurement of the property covered by Exts.P-4 & P-5 is only for an extent of 7.75 cents. A reading of last sentence of para 1 of the impugned Ext.P-7 order will show that the actual land area of 7.75 cents comprises of 1.04 cents of karaima right and 6.71 cents of appurtenant land in beneficial enjoyment. It is also not in dispute that the only person who could have raised any legally justiciable grievance as to the legality, correctness and propriety of Ext.P-4 order and Ext.P-5 purchase certificate was the land owner concerned. It is not in dispute that the land owner concerned has not raised any grievance in that regard and by efflux of time he should be deemed to have accepted the legality and correctness of Exts.P-4 and P-5 on account of delay, laches, acquiescence, etc. The respondents have no case whatsoever that the land owner has raised any dispute within the prescribed period of limitation or even thereafter and therefore it is indisputable that any such claim is time barred. The respondents have no case whatsoever that the land owner has raised any dispute within the prescribed period of limitation or even thereafter and therefore it is indisputable that any such claim is time barred. The 1st respondent would take the stand that since one of the enactments on the basis of which Exts.P-4 and P-5 were granted was under Act.No.21/1999 and as the said Act 21/1999 was struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in Ratna Bai's case (supra) then that would amount to taking away the substratum of the decision in Exts.P-4 and P-5 and therefore the purchase certificate issued is illegal and ultra vires and consequently assignment made in favour of the petitioner is ultra vires, unenforceable, etc. It is also stated by the 1st respondent that since the claimed land, which is the appurtenant land in beneficial enjoyment, is more than the limit of 3 cents in Municipal Corporation area, as per the explanation appended to clause (23A) of Sec.2 and as the proviso thereto engrafted as per Act No.21/1999 will not have any legal efficacy inasmuch as the provisions in Act No.21/1999 have already been struck down by the Division Bench of this Court, the proceedings at Exts.p4 and P-5 are bad in law, etc. 7. To deal with the first aspect, it is seen that only a person who could have raised contention in regard to legality and correctness of Exts.P-4 and P-5 rendered in favour of the mother of the petitioner is the landlord concerned, who has never raised any complaint in that regard. Hence the official respondents have no locus in law to raise any objections as it could have been raised as a legally justiciable grievance only by the land owner concerned. Since the land owner concerned has not chosen to challenge the grant in favour of his mother in view of Exts.P-4 & P-5, the same cannot be reopened by the respondents, merely on the ground that one of the enabling enactments was subsequently struck down by this Court. Therefore, on that sole ground the impugned order is liable for interdiction and it is so ordered. Moreover, very crucially, Exts.P-4 and P-5 proceedings of the Land Tribunal have become final and conclusive and the same has not been altered by the competent forum in the manner contemplated by the Kerala Land “Reforms Act. Therefore, on that sole ground the impugned order is liable for interdiction and it is so ordered. Moreover, very crucially, Exts.P-4 and P-5 proceedings of the Land Tribunal have become final and conclusive and the same has not been altered by the competent forum in the manner contemplated by the Kerala Land “Reforms Act. So the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to issue an order in the nature of Ext.P-7 to nullify and negate Exts.P-4 and P-5 and that too, while deciding on the issue of acceptance of land tax. Hence the impugned Ext.P-7 order is illegal and ultravires. 8. That apart, the Division Bench of this Court has held in the decision in Ratna Bai's case (supra), that what is struck down is only Act No.21/1999 since the said provisions do not have constitutional immunity and those provisions are otherwise ultra vires and violative of the provisions contained in Part III of the Constitution of India. Further it was categorically held in Ratna Bai's case (supra) that Act No.16/1989 is a piece of legislation, which has secured immunity from constitutional challenge as the same has been duly included in the 9th schedule of the Constitution of India. The 1st respondent has clearly lost sight of even the proviso to the explanation appended to clause (23A) of Sec.2 of the Act as inserted by Act No.16/1989, which stipulates as follows: “Provided that where the extent of the land appurtenant in the possession and beneficial enjoyment is in excess of the extent specified above as on the 24th day of January, 1989, such land shall also be deemed to be karaima.”. True, that the explanation appended to clause (23A) of Sec.2 as inserted by Act No.16/1989 provides a limit of 3 cents in respect of beneficial enjoyment of land if it is in Corporation area. But that, the proviso clearly stipulates that where the land appurtenant in possession and beneficial enjoyment is in excess of the extent specified above as on 24.1.1989, then such land shall also be deemed to be karaima. The 1st respondent has not taken into consideration the above said crucial provision. But that, the proviso clearly stipulates that where the land appurtenant in possession and beneficial enjoyment is in excess of the extent specified above as on 24.1.1989, then such land shall also be deemed to be karaima. The 1st respondent has not taken into consideration the above said crucial provision. The 1st respondent has mainly relied on explanation as well as proviso to clause (23A) of Sec.2 as inserted by Act No.21/1999, which also provides similar provisions but the cut off date is 1.1.70 instead of the cut off date of 24.1.1989 as stipulated in Act No.16/89. There cannot be any dispute that the petitioner's mother is entitled to the benefits of the proviso to the explanation to Sec.2(23A) as inserted by Act No.16/1989. Therefore, in view of the above said aspects the impugned order at Ext.P-7 is liable to the interdicted. In that view of the matter, the impugned Ext.P-7 order will stand set aside. 9. However, it is made clear that the petitioner has no serious dispute that the land area as per actual measurement in the field is 7.75 cents comprising of 1.04 cents of karaima + 6.75 cents of appurtenant beneficial enjoyment land. The respondents, more particularly, the 2nd respondent-Village Officer will take immediate steps to accept basic tax from the petitioner in respect of the above said property in 7.75 cents as evident from Ext.P-6 receipt and arrears of land tax should be collected from him. Needful in this regard should be done by the 2nd respondent without much delay, preferably within a period of two weeks on the petitioner producing a certified copy of this judgment. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.