If Tehsildar Issues 'Patta' Under Kerala Land Assignment Rules, It Is Implied That All Land Assignment Dues Are Paid: High Court

The issue was decided by Justice K. Babu in a second appeal. The Appellant had initially filed a suit seeking declaration of his title over a property. He had alleged that the defendants had trespassed into his property. The property was sold to him by Shri. Moosa. The property was assigned to Moosa under Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964.

Special Tahsildar for Land Assignment and Village Officer had apprised the court that the assignment of land to Moosa in 21.08.1978 was cancelled on 31.03.1981 due to non-remittance of LA dues within prescribed time. It was later assigned to the defendants 4 to 6 in 27.07.1994.

However, Moosa submitted before the Court that he had paid the land dues.

The appellant contended that assignment of patta implies the payment of all dues. It was further argued that there was nothing on record to show that the due process was followed while cancelling the patta. Cancellation of the assignment without affording an opportunity of hearing renders the cancellation invalid, it was argued.

The defendants argued that as per Rule 9(7) of KLA rules, the registry can be cancelled if the land value, tree value, arrears of tax and other charges are not remitted and the same had happened to Moosa.

The Court noted that cancellation of registry and cancellation of patta is two distinct things. As per Rule 9(7), after sanctioning registry, an assignee has to remit all charges within 3 months. The patta shall be assigned only if the entire amount is paid in three months. The Court observed that therefore it can be concluded that all the dues had been paid.

“Sub-rule (7) of Rule 9 and the proviso makes it crystal clear that the patta is liable to be issued only after the assignee remits all the charges contemplated by Rule-9. The necessary conclusion is that the stage of issuance of patta as contemplated by Rule 9 presupposes payment of all charges by the assignee.”

High Court also noticed that the trial court and first appellate court had found that there was no evidence to show that Moosa was issued a notice before his patta was cancelled, hence violating principles of natural justice. It thus held that the cancellation of patta was invalid.

However, it refused to pass any orders in favour of the Appellant since he had not sought a relief for recovery of possession. As per proviso of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, the court shall not make a declaration of title when the plaintiff being able to seek a further relief does not do that. Therefore, the Court held that the appellant is not entitled to the decree of declaration. The Appeal was dismissed on this ground.

Counsel for Appellant: Advocate P. B. Krishnan

Counsel for Respondent: Government Pleader Jayan, Advocates V. V. Asokan, S. Amina, Mayankutty Mather K. I., T. K. Sreekala

Case No: RSA 788 of 2007

Case Title: Mohammed Mammunhi v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 403