Revenue Not Entitled To Thwart Filing Of Application For Letter Of Intent By Refusing To Grant Revenue Certificate For Mining Operation: Kerala HC
While hearing two writ petitions regarding the rights of deemed tenants under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (KLR Act), the Kerala High Court quashed the Tahsildar's refusal orders in issuing the survey plans to the petitioner stating that permission from the government was required to start mining operations on the subject land and clarified that Section 7E did not create ‘cultivating tenants’ as argued by the respondents and that the use of that term in the certificate of title form was a mistake.
The High Court also directed the Tahsildar to issue the survey plans within a month.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice T.R. Ravi stated that a survey plan was only a revenue record issued to identify the land belonging to the applicant and does not serve any other purpose, and the respondents were not entitled to thwart even the filing of an application for a letter of intent by refusing to grant the revenue certificates or survey plans.
"A landholder was entitled to be issued with such records on payment of the requisite fee. The revenue authorities could not arrogate to themselves the powers vested in the authorities under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act)", added the Bench.
Advocate Alex M. Scaria appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Government Pleader Aswin Sethumadhavan appeared for the Respondent.
In the present case, the petitioners owned land in Thripangottur village and had certificates of title as deemed tenants under Section 7E. They applied for survey plans with the Tahsildar's countersignature to apply for a letter of intent for starting mining operations on their land. However, the Tahsildar refused to issue the survey plans stating that permission from the government was required first. The petitioners contended that the revenue authorities did not have the power to decide on permitting mining and that a survey plan was only a revenue record for identifying the land.
After considering the submission, the Bench upheld the rights of the petitioners as deemed tenants under Section 7E of the KLR Act and emphasized that the revenue authorities did not have the authority to determine mining permissions and that the survey plans were only for revenue records.
The Bench clarified the interpretation of Section 7E and established that mining activities should be regulated by the competent authority under the MMDR Act), rather than the revenue authorities.
The High Court stated that the purpose of the amendment vis-a-vis Section 7E of the KLR Act, as seen from the Statement of Objects and Reasons, was to protect the smallholders and cultivating tenants who had purchased or otherwise acquired lands for consideration through registered documents, from persons who were holding excess land.
“The section starts with a non-obstante clause and specifically mentioned Sections 74 and 84 of the KLR Act. Section 84 dealt with voluntary transfers effected after the date of coming into force of the KLR Act, which were treated as transfers to defeat the ceiling provisions. Section 7E was an exemption and validated transfers referred to therein. Section 74 is related to the creation of future tenancies. While introducing Section 7E, Sections 106B and 84(4) were brought into the Statute Book, to give full effect to the intention behind the introduction of Section 7E. Section 106B facilitated the issuance of a certificate of title as a record of ownership, which complemented the registered title deed of persons who had purchased land which was excess land in the hands of the transferor”, added the Court.
The Bench further reiterated that to get the benefit of Section 7E, there was no requirement to obtain a certificate of title under Section 106 B.
“The certificate of title was issued in the prescribed form, and the relevant rule was Rule 122A of the KLR (Tenancy) Rules. As per Section 7E, the fiction created was to deem a purchaser as a tenant. The purchase can be of land of any nature. There is no requirement that the land should be paddy land where cultivation is being carried out”, added the Bench.
Cause Title: Diamond Crushers Podikkalam and Ors. v. The State of Kerala and Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgment
