WPC 28115/2006 Pokkuvaravu of harrison plantation property allowed uploaded by James Joseph Adhikarathik 9447464502 From the judicial decisions of this court, enumerated in the forgoing paragraphs, it is clearly evident that despite attempting various litigations and raising varioius contentions challenging title of the 7th respondent company and the transfers made by them, the Government could not initiate any statutory proceedings under any of the relevant laws for recovery of the land or to get it established that Government holds title over the property. Legal precedents with respect to the Transfer of Registry Rules remains settled to the effect that, with respect to a transfer of title by consent of parties, mutation cannot be rejected. Further, it is evident that mutation effected will not affect the title or rights with respect to any property. Therefore, unless the Government could establish with concrete evidence based on materials that title of the property in question vests with the Government, they cannot be allowed to refuse or reject the request for mutation, based on transfer of title by consent. In both these cases the request for mutation is rejected on the basis that the Government have got a claim that the 7th  respondent company and its transferees were not holding valid title. But such an allegation by itself is not sufficient to deny the mutation requested. This is especially because of the fact that the properties in question stands already mutated in the name of the 7th respondent company and its transferees, as per the revenue records. Unless and until the Government establishes through methods acceptable to law that the Government is title holder of the property and there is no absolute transfer of title by virtue of the documents relating to transaction of the properties, the denial of mutation cannot be justified and sustained. It is also not justifiable on the part of competent authorities to keep the matter indefinitely pending on the basis that an enquiry was ordered by the Government by constituting a `High Level Committee'. The Special Government Pleader is not in a position to point out that any proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act was initiated, despite liberty granted by this court. 19. Under the above mentioned circumstances, these writ petitions are allowed

1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
SATURDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/13TH ASWINA, 1935
WP(C).No. 28115 of 2006 (V)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
M/S.RIYA RESORTS AND PROPERTIES(P)LTD.,
GULAB BUILDING, GROUND FLOOR, 237,
PD MELLO ROAD, MUMBAI-400 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
K.JOY JOSEPH.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN
SMT.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESEENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (REVENUE),
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, MUSEUM JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM.
4. TAHSILDAR, PATHANAPURAM, PUNALUR.
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THENMALA.
6. C.R.NAJEEB,
DISTRICT PANCHAYATH MEMBER, PATHANAPURAM.
* ADDL.R7 IMPLEASDED:
R7. HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD.
REGD. OFFICE AT 24/1624, BRISTOW ROAD.
WILLINGTON ISLAND , KOCHI - 682 003.
(*ADDL.R7 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.01.2012 IN IA.NO.1226/2012)
R1 TO R5 BY SPL.GOVT.PLEADER(REVENUE)SMT.SUSHEELA R.BHATT
R6 BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNA RAJ
ADDL. R7 BY ADV.SRI. BY E.K NANDAKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 05-10-2013 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.8716/2010,THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss

2. WPC.NO.28115/2006 (V)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
P1: COPY OF SALE DEED NO.2840 DATED 23/06/05.
P2: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 31/01/06 IN WPC.NO.34177/05 OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT.
P3: COPY OF ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 22/02/06.
P4: COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
P5: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21/04/06.
P6: COPY OF ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16/12/05.
P7: COPY OF REPORT OF D.F.O.THENMALA DIVISION TO THE PETITIONER,
DATED 24/10/05.
P8: COPY OF ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 10/11/03.
P9: COPY OF VALUATION STATEMENT.
P10: COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 30/01/71.
P11: COPY OF NOTIFICATION DATED 23/06/88.
P12: COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF THE PATHANAPURAM TALUK OFFICE
DATED 3/05/91.
P13: COPY OF THANDAPER REGISTER INI THE NAME OF TR AND TEA.
P14: COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
DATED 11/10/06.
P15: COPY OF REPORT DATED 2/05/06 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT.
P16: COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 17/10/06 ISSUED BY ADDL.TAHSILDAR,
PATHANAPURAM.
P17: COPY OF THE SALES CERTIFICATE NO.217439 OF 1064 ME AND
REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO.3/1065.
P18: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2743/1068 ME DATED 27/01/1893.
P19: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.433/1083.
P20: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT OF 1343/1084.
Kss ..2/-

3. ...2....
WPC.NO.28115/2006(V)
P21: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT WITH THE RELEVANT PART DEALING
WITH THENMALAI ESTATE.
P22: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 10/06/06.
P23: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19/04/07 SENT BY THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, KOLLAM TO THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
P24: COPY OF INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO THE PETITIONER.
P25: COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES,
INCORPORATING CHANGE OF NAME.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES:
R1(a): COPY OF THE STAY ORDER DATED 30/11/2011IN O.P.3508/2011.
R1(b): COPY OF THE O.P.NO.3508/11 (WITHOUT ANNEXURES).
R1(c): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/02/2013 IN WPC.NO.14251/2012.
R1(d): G.O.(MS) NO.161/2013/RD DATED 25/04/2013 OF REVENUE (A) DEPT.
R1(e): COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/07/2012 PASSEDIN O.P.3508/2011.
R1(f): COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10/10/2012 IN OP(C) NO.3508/2011.
R1(g): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28/02/2013 IN WPC.NO.7379/12.
R2(a): COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.3197/09/RD DATED 10/09/2009.
R2(b): COPY OF DILAPIDATED PORTION OF DOCUMENT NO.1600/1923.
R2(c): COPY OF LETTER DTD. 20/03/2007 ISSUED BY HARRISON MALAYALAM LTD
TO THE SUB REGISTRAR, KOLLAM.
R2(d): COPY OF RULES 4 THE SALE OF WASTE LAND ON THE TRAVANCORE
HILLS, 1865.
R6(a): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.5020/R.
R6(b): COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE HIGH LEVEL COMMITTEE DATED
27/09/2007.
Kss ..3/-

4. ...3....
WPC.NO.28115/2006 (V)
R6(c): COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT DATED 16/12/2005.
R6(d): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REPORT OF THE SIT
DATED 06/01/2010.
R6(e): COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 19/10/2007.
R6(f): COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REPORT OF THE SIT
DATED 06/01/2010.
ANNEX.1: COPY OF THE DEED NO.2188/1916 OF KOLLAM REGISTRY AND
PHOTO COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 31/10/2006.
ANNEX.II: COPY OF THANDAPER EXTRACT (TP NO.136) OF ARYANKAVU
VILLAGE IN PATHANAPURAM TALUK (4 SHEETS) AND COPY OF
THE LIST PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ARYANKAVU
VILLAGE.
/TRUE COPY/
P.S.TOJUDGE
Kss

5. C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.
-------------------------------------------------
W.P.(c) No. 28115 OF 2006
&
W.P.(c) No. 8716 OF 2010
-------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 5th
DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013.
J U D G M E N T
Since a common issued is involved in both these cases,
pertaining to the transfer of registry of land originally
belonged to the additional 7th
respondent in W.P (c)
No.28115/2006, both these writ petitions are considered
together and disposed of through this common judgment.
2. W.P (c) No.8716/2010 is filed challenging Ext.P6
through which the Tahsildar, Pathanapuram had rejected
the request of the petitioner to effect mutation in the
revenue records, with respect to land comprised in Sy.
No.385 of Aryankavu Village. Averments in the writ petition
are that, 62 Acres of land comprised in Sy.No.385 of
Aryankavu Village, which is a plantation, was purchased by
the petitioner and her family members during year 2006.
The documents relating to the transfer of the property are
produced as Exts.P1 and P11 to P18. The purchase was
made from its previous owners namely; Shoukath Ali,

6. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -2-
Nazeera, Seena, Najeera, Nazeer etc. In the revenue
records the properties stood in the name of the previous
owners. Exhibit P2 series and Ext.P20 series are copies of
extracts of the “Tahadaper Register” and Basic Tax
Receipts evidencing the above said fact. After purchase of
the land the petitioner and her family members had
obtained mutation effected with respect to 22 Acres.
Exhibit P3 series & Ext.P9 series are the Basic Tax Receipts
evidencing the mutation. But with respect to the balance
extent of 40 Acres, applications for mutation were not
allowed, despite Ext.P5, a favourable report forwarded by
the Village officer. The Tahsildar had issued the impugned
order (Ext.P6) stating that, the land in question is included
in the total extent of 707.11 Acres mutated from the name
of M/s. Malayalam Plantation Company and there is an
order issued by the State Government restraining further
mutations with respect to the said property of 707.11 Acres,
comprised in Sy. No.385/3 and 385/4 of Aryankavu Village.
3. According to the petitioner there was no such
order issued by the State Government prohibiting any

7. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -3-
mutation. The petitioner came to know that the
Commissioner of Land Revenue had issued Ext.P7 directing
all the District Collectors not to carry out any 'Pokkuvaravu'
of lands possessed by M/s. Harrison Malayalam Plantations
Ltd. until further orders. The reason stated in Ext.P7 is that
there were allegations regarding large scale transfer of
Revenue/Forest lands given on lease to M/s. Harrison
Malayalam Plantations Ltd. and verifications regarding
legality of such transactions are under consideration of the
Government. It is stated that the Government have set up a
'High Level Committee' to consider the above aspects and
its report is awaited. Contention of the petitioner is that the
prohibition imposed through Ext.P7 will not affect the
mutations requested by the petitioner and her family
members, because the land in question was never in the
possession of M/s. Harrison Malayalam Plantation Ltd.
Further it is contended that effecting mutation under the
Transfer of Registry Rules 1966 is only for the purpose of
enabling collection of land revenue and it will not confer
any title on the land.

8. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -4-
4. The petitioner relied on the decision in
Kuriakose Elias Trust for Communication and
Development V. Principal Secretary, Department
of Revenue and others (2009 (2) KHC 602). It is held
that the transfer of registry will not affect legal rights of any
person in respect of any land. The question of legal right is
always subject to adjudication by civil court. It is settled law
that mutation entries are only for the purpose of collecting
land revenue from the person in possession, but it does not
confer any title to the land. Referring to procedure
contemplated under Rule 3 (a) and Rule 10 of the Transfer
of Registry Rules, this court held that any sale or other
absolute transfer of land mentioned under Rule 3 (a) will
fall under the category of cases which can be disposed of
without any enquiry. Under such circumstances the
petitioner is assailing Ext.P6 through which the request for
effecting mutation was declined.
5. Facts contained in W.P (c) No.28115/2006 are
identical in many respects. The petitioner company therein
had purchased 83.61 Hecters (200.56 Acres) of land

9. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -5-
comprised in Sy. No.1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 2/4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and
11 of Thenmala Village from the the additional 7th
respondent, by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed. According to the
petitioner the property originally belonged to M/s.
Malayalam Plantation Limited, a company incorporated in
England, who had purchased the land from M/s. Malayalam
Rubber Produce Company Limited, as per sale deed
No.1600 of 1098 ME. The Company M/s. Malayalam
Plantation had changed its names to M/s. Harrison
Malayalam Ltd. by virtue of an order of this court in CP
No.13/2003. The petitioner applied for mutation of the land
covered under Ext.P1 document. Since the request was not
considered the petitioner had approached this court on an
earlier occasion in W.P (c) No.34177/2005. In Ext.P2
judgment, dated 31-01-2006 a direction was issued to the
District Collector to take a decision on the question of
effecting mutation, in accordance with law. Ext.P3 is the
consequential order issued. It is mentioned in Ext.P3 that
the 6th
respondent had submitted objections against
effecting mutation stating that the land in question is

10. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -6-
Government owned forest land leased out by the erstwhile
State Government of Tranvancore to the 7th
respondent, in
the year 1906, for a period of 99 years. The 6th
respondent
had made a complaint to the Government to resume the
land, since the lease period had expired. It was also alleged
that the land covered under Ext.P1 is part of the 252 Acres
of land declared as surplus land to be surrendered by the 7th
respondent, as per proceedings of the Taluk Land Board,
Vythri, dated 02-07-1982. In Ext.P3 the District Collector
had mentioned about the directions received from the Chief
Minister on the representation of the 6th
respondent. In
Ext.P3 it is observed that there is no mention in Document
No.1600/1098ME as to whether M/s. Malayalam Rubber
Produce Company holds absolute title over the property.
Therefore the application to get the land mutated, was
rejected. However, it was observed that, since the matter is
under enquiry by the 'High Level Committee' constituted by
the Government, suitable action will be taken in due course
after getting directions from the Government in the matter.
The operative portion of Ext.P3 order mentioning the

11. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -7-
reasons is re-produced hereunder;
“(1) Clear records proving title of Malayalam
Rubber and Produce Co. Ltd, London over the
disputed lands.
(2) details of land sold from each survey and sub
division numbers with its well defined boundaries.
(3) details of lands ordered to be surrendered by
Harrison Malayalam Ltd., Kochi as surplus land
under KLR Act, it will not be possible to consider the
request of M/s. Riya Resorts and Properties Private
Ltd., Mumbai to mutate the 206.51 acres of land in
question in their name. Therefore the application
dated 13-06-2005 filed by M/s. Riya Resorts and
Properties Private Ltd. to got the properties
mentioned above mutated in their name is rejected.
However, since the above matters are being
enquired into in detail by the High Level Committee
constituted by the Government as per G.O (Rt)
No.6562/05/RD dated 16-12-2005, suitable action
will be taken in due course after getting directions
from the Government in this matter.”
6. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 the petitioner had preferred
appeal before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, the 2nd
respondent. But the order of the District Collector was

12. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -8-
confirmed observing that there is lack of clarity regarding
transfer of ownership and saleable rights over the land in
question. It was reiterated that the High Level Committee
constituted by the Government was assigned with the
responsibility to conduct detailed enquiry with special
reference to the lands given to M/s. Harrison Malayalam
Ltd. Any decision on the petition for mutation can be taken
only after final report of the High Level Committee is
obtained.
7. Aggrieved by Exts.P3 and P5 the present writ
petition is filed. The petitioner had produced various
documents to substantiate that the property remains
transferred into the name of the 7th
respondent in the
revenue records, and that the 7th
respondent Company has
got absolute title over the property. Pleadings in the writ
petition and in the reply affidavit are specifically to the
effect that the land covered under Ext.P1 is not part of the
land leased out by the erstwhile Government of the State of
Travancore. Documents relating to a series of transactions
through which the 7th
respondent derived title over the

13. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -9-
property, are produced to substantiate the claim.
8. The reason for denial of the mutation, mentioned
in both these cases are that, the predecessor of the 7th
respondent company was not having absolute title or
ownership over the land, and hence the transfer of registry
effected in favour of the 7th
respondent and all the
subsequent transfers/mutations are liable to be cancelled.
The Tahsildar as well as the Commissioner of Land Revenue
had filed counter affidavits in both the cases. A detailed
additional counter affidavit is filed by the State Government
in both these cases. Averments in brief are that, M/s.
Malayalam Plantation Limited is a sterling company
incorporated in England, as an Indian company, in the year
1971. The said Company was prohibited from possessing
any plantations for agriculture within the territory of India,
by virtue of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
There was no permission obtained for any such activities as
contemplated under the said Act. Hence the transfer of the
holdings, rights, title or interest vested on the 7th
respondent was a nullity in law. Since provisions of the

14. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -10-
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act came into force with
effect from 04-01-1974, the holding claimed is a nullity and
cannot be recognized by any court of law. It is further
contended that the holding of the land by the foreign
company was in gross violation of the Kerala Land Reforms
Act. The property belongs to the State of Kerala, as
successor of the erstwhile State Governments of
Travancore, Malabar and Cochin. The proceedings initiated
by the Taluk Land Board was based on a fraudulent and
concocted documents and the predecessor in interest of the
petitioners have obtained favourable orders by placing
reliance on invalid documents on a coercive manner.
According to the State Government the entire proceedings
of the Taluk Land Board are challenged before this court by
invoking jurisdiction under Article 227 and 226, by filing
O.P No.3508/2011 and this court had stayed all further
proceedings of the Taluk Land Board, as evidenced from
Ext.R3 (a). It is contended that the foreign company claimed
title over more than 59000 Acres of land and continued in
possession as if they are legally entitled to carry out

15. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -11-
plantation activities within the State. Since validity of the
title claimed by the said company is not established, the
documents of transfer or mutation, if any executed will not
confer title on the present petitioners, is the contention.
9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
Commissioner of Land Revenue in WP(C).No.28115/2006, it
is conceded that mutation was effected in favour of the 7th
respondent with respect to the land covered under
document No. 1600/1098 M.E. But the mutation effected
was not in order, because no details regarding title of the
vendor, M/s. Malayalam Rubber and Produce Company
was discernible. Hence it is stated that the mutation
effected in favour of the 7th
respondent is also likely to be
cancelled. It is further stated that the land owned by the
erstwhile Travancore State Government was leased out to
certain companies and therefore it is necessary to ascertain
as to how absolute title of such land was transferred in
favour of M/s. Malayalam Rubber and Produce Company
Limited. If absolute title over the property cannot be
proved, the mutation already effected in favour of M/s.

16. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -12-
Harrisons Malayalam Limited itself will have to be
cancelled, is the contention. However it is conceded that,
transaction in favour of the petitioner company is not with
respect to land held by the additional 7th
respondent on
lease. It is stated that no land was given to the 7th
respondent on lease basis. But it is alleged that the land
which was leased out by the erstwhile Travancore State
Government for which free hold right was later granted to
Mr. Keir and others, have reached the hands of M/s.
Malayalam Produce Company, London, from whom the 7th
respondent had purchased the property. But how the
absolute title was transferred with respect to the free hold
land is yet to be proved. It is also contended that, the fact
that various extents of land was acquired from the 7th
respondent for different purposes like Kallada Irrigation
Project, and that payments of compensation was made to
them, will not by itself confer absolute title with respect to
the land in question.
10. Detailed reply affidavit was filed in WP(C).
No.28115/2006, producing various documents to illustrate

17. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -13-
that the land purchased by the petitioner company is not
part of any land leased out by the erstwhile Travancore
State Government. A rejoinder affidavit is seen filed by the
Commissioner Land Revenue disputing correctness of those
documents.
11. Before entering upon any adjudication on the rival
contentions, it is beneficial to have a scanning of the
relevant provisions in the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966.
Rule 3 deals with different procedure to be followed in
effecting the transfer of registry, under different
circumstances. Sub Rule (a) of Rule 3 deals with the
transfer of registry on voluntarily transfer of tile. Rule 3(b)
deals with transfer by decrees of civil court or by revenue
sales. Rule 3(c) deals with transfer due to succession. In
the case at hand the requests for mutation was made based
on voluntary transfer of title. Therefore the procedure to
be followed is the one contemplated under Rule 3(a). It
provides that, in all cases of absolute transfer of title by way
of sale, partition, gift, agreement etc. the party should
record their consent for the transfer of the registry and an

18. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -14-
application should be made before the Registering Officer
along with the document. The application containing copy
of document should be certified by the Registering Officer.
The said application certified by the Registering Officer
should be produced before the village officer to effect the
transfer of registry. Rule 7 provides that the Village
Officer should prepare a statement and shall forward the
same to the concerned Tahsildar within 15 days of the
receipt of the application. Such reports received by the
Tahsildar shall be entered in the Register kept for the said
purpose. Rule 10 provides the procedure to be followed in
the case of applications with respect to uncontested cases.
Note attached to Rule 10 specifies that, cases of sale and
other absolute transfers mentioned under Rule 3(a) will
fall under the category of uncontested cases and in such
cases no enquiry is necessary and it should be disposed of
by the Deputy Tahsildar of the Taluk concerned. In all
contested cases the matter need to be considered after due
enquiry to be conducted.

19. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -15-
12. The next aspect which needs consideration is the
effect of the mutation or the transfer of registry. Sri. M.C.
Sen learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner in WP(C). No.28115/2006 had drawn attention of
this court to the decision of the hon'ble apex court. In
Balwant Singh and another vs. Daulat Singh and
others (1997 (7) SCC 137) it is held that, mutation of
any property in the revenue records will neither create nor
extinguish title on the property nor has it any presumptive
value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the
purpose of collecting land revenue. Mutation will not
affect rights of any parties conducting sale or it will not
affect any civil litigation claiming title over the property.
In another decision in Surajkhan and others vs.
Financial Commissioner and others (2007 (6) SCC
186) the hon'ble apex court held that, the entry in
'jamabandi' does not confer any title, which can only be
decided by civil court. In Rajinder Singh vs. State of
Jammu and Kashmir ( 2008 (9) SCC 368) it was held by
the hon'ble Supreme Court that entry in the revenue

20. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -16-
records is only for fiscal purpose. Substantive rights of title
and ownership of contesting claimants can be decided only
by competent civil court in appropriate proceedings. This
court had followed the above proposition in the case of
Kuriakose Elias Trust's case (cited supra). In yet
another decision of this court in Thulasibhai vs. State of
Kerala (2010 (4) KLT 215) it is held that pendency of
revenue recovery proceedings is not a ground to deny the
request for mutation, because it will not have any impact on
the revenue recovery proceedings or it will not improve the
title of the purchaser.
13. From the legal position remaining settled, it is
evident that mutation if any effected under the Transfer of
Registry Rules is mainly to enable fiscal purpose of
collecting land tax . Such entries will not confer any title
or right over the land, if the same is in dispute or in any
manner defective. Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules
specifically provides that, the summary enquiry and
decision to be taken on the request for mutation is only an
arrangement for fiscal purposes and will not affect the

21. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -17-
legal rights of any person in respect of the land covered by
such decisions. The question of legal rights is also subject
to adjudication by the civil court and the 'patta' will be
revised from time to time in accordance with the judicial
decisions. Hence it is clear that if the transfer of registry
is permitted in the cases at hand, that will not confer any
title or right upon the petitioners, if the title is otherwise
suffering from any inherent deficiency, either in the case of
the petitioner or in the case of the predecessor in interest
who had transferred the ownership. It is evident that the
transfer of registry was applied on the basis of sale deeds
executed between the parties to the transaction who had
consented for the transfer of registry. Therefore,
undisputedly it is a case falling within the purview of Rule 3
(a) and it has to be dealt with as uncontested case, as per
the note attached to Rule 10.
14. From the impugned orders it is evident that the
transfer of registry was declined expressing doubt
regarding absolute title and ownership of the predecessor
in interest who held the property at some point of time.

22. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -18-
Question remains as to whether the transfer of registry can
be denied on the basis of any doubt regarding absolute title
of the predecessor in interest of the vendor. Admittedly, in
both the cases mutations were effected in favour of the
predecessors in interest by way of transfer of registry,
allowed long back. Contentions of the State Government
as well as the party respondents are to the effect that there
is lack of absolute transfer of the title over the land and
since the Government is claiming title over the property, it
is justified on the part of the revenue authorities in
declining the transfer of registry.
15. On the basis of the contention that the
Government vests title over the properties, question
assumes importance as to whether the denial to effect
mutation can be sustained or not. In this regard, learned
Special Government Pleader as well as counsel appearing
for the party respondents had drawn attention of this court
to a Division Bench judgment of this court in W.P.(C).
No.14251 of 2012 and connected cases, dated 28.02.2013.
One of the petitioners in the said cases, is the person who

23. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -19-
impleaded as additional respondent in the present writ
petitions. Those writ petitions were filed with an allegation
that the 7th
respondent company as well as its transferees,
including Gospel for Asia (GFA), are holding lands which
are essentially Government lands, and that the authorities
concerned are not taking any action under the Land
Conservancy Act. This Court noticed that the proceedings
before the Thaluk Land Board was remanded for
reconsideration on some of the issues covered in the cealing
proceedings. This court had taken note of the fact that OP
(C) No.3508/2011 was filed invoking Article 228 and 227,
with the pleading that the proceedings pending before the
Thaluk Land Board should be called for to this Court, since
question relating to interpretation of the Constitution
arises. It was contended that the issue relating to the entire
transactions under which the 7th
respondent and its
transferees are claiming right over the land, are executed in
violation of the Constitution and various other statues
including FERA, FEMA and orders of the Land Board.
Government took a stand that the properties in the

24. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -20-
possession of the 7th
respondent are Government lands or
lands which are recoverable under the provisions of the
Land Conservancy Act. This Court observed that the
competent authority under the Land Conservancy Act has to
decide the question as to whether there exists any ground
to proceed under the Act. However, judgment in WP(C)
No.6258 of 2010 as well as order in R.P.No.676 of 2011 in
WP(C) No.32628 of 2007 were taken note of to hold that the
proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act, with respect
to land held by GFA should be deferred till proper
identification of the land. This Court observed that, even in
the Land Board Proceedings in the cealing case, if the
Government would have raised contention that the
properties are Government lands, it would have been within
the jurisdiction of any competent authority to initiate action.
Ultimately it was observed that, if the Government have a
case that the paramount title of the land vests with them,
they will be at liberty to initiate action in accordance with
law. This Court made it clear that if and when any
competent authority under the Land Conservancy Act

25. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -21-
initiate any such proceedings, it would be appropriate for
the company to contest the same on the question of
jurisdictional issue. This Court refrained from adjudicating
the question of jurisdictional issue relating to any such
proceedings, observing that it will be highly premature and
will be prejudging matters which the statutory authorities
have to decide. The said Writ Petition was disposed of
giving opportunity to the authority concerned to take steps
under the Land Conservancy Act within a period of two
months.
16. As observed above, in the matter of land
transfered to Gospel for Asia by the 7th
respondent, various
litigations were pending before this Court. A batch of
review petitions were disposed of through a common order
dated 06.01.2004. Actions initiated against the GFA was
quashed repelling the contention that the Government vests
title over the property in question. There is an observation
made by a Division Bench of this Court in the said judgment
that, as regards the report of the ‘High Level Committee’,
the Court is of the view that the same has no evidentiary

26. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -22-
value, because such a report was prepared without hearing
the GFA.
17. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that
O.P(C)No.3508 of 2011 filed by the Government was
disposed of through a common Judgment along with O.P(C).
No.2989 of 2011 (judgment dated 09.09.2013). In the said
judgment this court found that there arise no substantial
question of law requiring interpretation of the Constitution,
with respect to the proceedings pending before the Thaluk
Land Board. It was observed that if the State Government
has any clear assertion that the provisions of any statute is
violated as regards the title of the properties in question, it
may have to invoke appropriate proceedings under the
relevant statute. If any questions of public policy and
public interest are involved, bare minimum is that
appropriate action in accordance with rule of law has to
follow. There cannot be any shortcut by invoking
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 or under Article
228, is the findings.

27. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -23-
18. From the judicial decisions of this court,
enumerated in the forgoing paragraphs, it is clearly evident
that despite attempting various litigations and raising
varioius contentions challenging title of the 7th
respondent
company and the transfers made by them, the Government
could not initiate any statutory proceedings under any of
the relevant laws for recovery of the land or to get it
established that Government holds title over the property.
Legal precedents with respect to the Transfer of Registry
Rules remains settled to the effect that, with respect to a
transfer of title by consent of parties, mutation cannot be
rejected. Further, it is evident that mutation effected will
not affect the title or rights with respect to any property.
Therefore, unless the Government could establish with
concrete evidence based on materials that title of the
property in question vests with the Government, they
cannot be allowed to refuse or reject the request for
mutation, based on transfer of title by consent. In both
these cases the request for mutation is rejected on the basis
that the Government have got a claim that the 7th

28. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -24-
respondent company and its transferees were not holding
valid title. But such an allegation by itself is not sufficient
to deny the mutation requested. This is especially because
of the fact that the properties in question stands already
mutated in the name of the 7th
respondent company and its
transferees, as per the revenue records. Unless and until
the Government establishes through methods acceptable to
law that the Government is title holder of the property and
there is no absolute transfer of title by virtue of the
documents relating to transaction of the properties, the
denial of mutation cannot be justified and sustained. It is
also not justifiable on the part of competent authorities to
keep the matter indefinitely pending on the basis that an
enquiry was ordered by the Government by constituting a
‘High Level Committee’. The Special Government Pleader
is not in a position to point out that any proceedings under
the Land Conservancy Act was initiated, despite liberty
granted by this court.
19. Under the above mentioned circumstances, these
writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders declining

29. W.P.(c) Nos.28115/2006 & 8716/2010 -25-
to effect the mutations requested are hereby quashed. The
Tahasildars concerned are directed to reconsider the
applications and to order mutation/transfer of registry, if
the requirement under Rule 3(a) with respect to execution
of the documents of transfer is satisfied. The needful steps
in this regard shall be taken at the earliest possible, at any
rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment. Conditions if any stipulated in the
interim orders passed in these writ petitions will stand
cancelled and consequential steps in this regard shall be
taken by the appropriate authorities.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM,
JUDGE.
AMG/Pmn/DSV
True copy
P.A to Judge