Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 518 (KER)

Sukumaran S/o Achuthan v. State Of Kerala

2025-03-10

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.

body2025
JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs: “i). Call for the records leading to Exts.P1 to P4 from the respondents; ii). Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction directing to the 6 th respondent to register sale deed or any other deed of alienation of property on presentation with respect to survey No.77/1 (resurvey No.50/1) of Mankulam Village (Plot No.1158) without insisting for expiry of 12 years from 16.02.2018, the date of Ext.P3; iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction directing to the respondents 4 and 5 to effect mutation and accept land tax on the basis of the sale deed or any other deed of transfer of property with respect to survey No.77/1 (resurvey No.No.50/1) of Mankulam Village (Plot No.1158); iv) Declare that the restriction contained in the 3 rd condition in Ext.P3 on the basis of Rule 8(1) of Kannan Devan Hills (Reservation and Assignment of Vested Lands) Rules 1977 is not applicable to the petitioner at present” 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner was assigned 1 Hectare of land in survey No.77/1 (resurvey No. No.50/1) of Mankulam Village (Plot No.1158) under the Kannan Devan Hills (Reservation and Assignment of Vested Lands) Rules 1977 on 22.07.1996 by the 2 nd respondent. But the patta was issued to the petitioner after completing the formalities and some other litigations with respect to assignment of property only on 16.02.2018 with reservation that the property shall not be alienated for a period of 12 years from the date of assignment. The petitioner wants to sell the property as the reservation against alienation is not applicable as the assignment was in the year 1996 and the 12 year period is already completed from the original date of assignment. This Court in W.P.(C) No.21054 of 2022 held that the restriction under Rule 8 of the Kannan Devan Hills (Reservation and Assignment of Vested Lands) Rules 1977 is not applicable in similar cases as assignment was delayed not due to the fault of the petitioner and the assignment is to be taken from the date of original order of assignment of registry. In spite of declaration of law by this Court, the 6 th respondent is not receiving documents for registration for transfer of interest and the respondents 4 and 5 are not effecting mutation on the basis of registration of documents. The Writ Petition is filed in the above background. 3. The 4 th respondent Tahsildar, Devikulam, filed a counter affidavit dated 10.01.2025 denying the pleadings in the writ petition. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of that counter affidavit read thus: “3. It is submitted that the petitioner was assigned 1 hectare of land in old survey 77/1 as plot number 1158 as per the land allotment order number C4/12860/94 dated 22.07.1996. However, the petitioner failed to remit the amounts payable as per the land allotment order. As such, patta was not issued to the petitioner. Later, on 12.10.2018, the petitioner submitted an application for issuance of patta. The land value was revised accordingly as per LA/7/2018/Mankulam and patta was issued with respect to 00.96.20 hectares of land belonging to Reserve Survey 50/1 (old Survey 77/1) in favour of the petitioner. 4. It is submitted that the patta was granted to the petitioner only on 16.02.2018 and in the patta, it is stipulated as condition 3 that “Except as provided in sub- rule(2) and (3) of 7 alienation of land is strictly prohibited for a period of 12 years from the date of assignment". It is submitted that though petitioner received assignment order on 22.07.1996, patta was not issued since land value was not remitted. Subsequently, patta was granted on 16.02.2018 as per the petitioner's application dated 12.01.2018 for assignment of land. As such, the transfer of land can be done only after 12 years as stipulated in the patta document.” 4. To the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent, the petitioner filed a reply affidavit. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the land was initially assigned to the petitioner by virtue of Ext.P1 order of assignment of registry in Form No.5 dated 22.07.1996. But he was not issued with the patta immediately due to non- completion of some formalities. He was issued with the patta only on 16.02.2018 with a reservation that the property shall not be alienated for a period of 12 years. But he was not issued with the patta immediately due to non- completion of some formalities. He was issued with the patta only on 16.02.2018 with a reservation that the property shall not be alienated for a period of 12 years. Since the assignment was originally made in the year 1996, the period of 12 years is over in 2008 and hence he is entitled to alienate the property. According to the learned counsel, in similar matters, a learned Single judge of this Court permitted the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.21054 of 2022 and W.P.(C)No.10068 of 2022 to alienate the property by taking the date of assignment as the starting point of 12 years. 7. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader submitted that in the matters wherein the permission was granted by the learned Single Judge to alienate the property, only the issuance of patta was delayed due to delay in completion of some official formalities. But in the instant case, the initial order of assignment did not come into effect due to non-payment of the required charges to be paid by the petitioner. He was assigned with the property subsequently by virtue of Ext.P2 fresh order of assignment on registry dated 16.02.2018 and Ext.P3 patta was issued on the basis of that order. Therefore, the condition restraining alienation for a period of 12 years in Ext.P2 will come into effect from that date onwards. Hence the petitioner cannot alienate the property before completion of that period. 8. In the judgments dated 21.11.2022 and 31.05.2022 in the respective writ petition Nos.21054 of 2022 and 10068 of 2022 pointed out by the petitioner, only the issuance of patta was delayed due to some administrative reasons. In those cases, no fresh orders of assignment were issued at the time of issuing patta. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge took the date of assignment as the starting point of 12 years mentioned in the order of assignment. But in the instant case, we notice that as per the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent, the petitioner did not pay the land value as directed in Ext.P1 order of assignment. Later, on the basis of an application filed by the petitioner, the land value was refixed and a fresh order of assignment on registry was passed on 16.02.2018 and patta was issued to the petitioner based on that order. Later, on the basis of an application filed by the petitioner, the land value was refixed and a fresh order of assignment on registry was passed on 16.02.2018 and patta was issued to the petitioner based on that order. The amount to be paid by the petitioner as land value, survey charges and demarcation charges is ordered in Ext.P2 order of assignment. A condition preventing alienation of property for a period for 12 years is also incorporated in Ext.P2. In such circumstances, the period of 12 years restraining alienation can be counted only from 16.02.2018. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find that the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs sought in the writ petition since the period restraining alienation of property assigned to him is not completed. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.