Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2026:KER:19290): Transfer of Registry can be Claimed only on Proper Application, with Supporting Documents

 Saji Koduvath, Advocate, Kottayam,

Abstract

  • Entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person.
  • Entries in revenue records have only ‘fiscal purpose’, i.e., for payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries.
  • Mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes the title of the property nor has it any presumptive value on title.
  • The mere fact that any of the disputing parties had paid basic tax for any particular period cannot be taken as a fact conferring a right upon such party for continued payment of basic tax.
  • The petitioner who seeks a writ of mandamus to effect the Transfer of Registry in favour of the petitioner has to produce documents of title to show that he is the ‘registered holder’.

Introduction

The High Court of Kerala, in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Others (Anil K. Narendran  &  S. Muralee Krishna, JJ.) held, on 5th March 2026 (2026:KER:19290), inter alia, the following with respect to the payment of Land Tax by the petitioner, Harrisons Malayalam Ltd.:

  • 1. The petitioner has no legal right to seek a writ of mandamus to effect the Transfer of Registry, since, inter alia, it has not chosen to submit a proper application, with supporting documents, before the competent authority.
  • 2. The condition imposed in the Government order to the extent it stipulates that the land tax received from the petitioner, i.e., Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. and its assignees, shall be subject to the final decision in the civil suit proposed to be filed by the State, is not sustainable in law.

However, the State will have the right to seek appropriate interim reliefs in the original suits filed against the petitioner, in respect of the lands in question.

Contention of the State

  • Land tax can be accepted only from the registered holder, as provided under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and Rules made thereunder.
  • The land is the absolute property of the Government.
  • The Government has taken steps to file civil suit against the petitioner.

Contention of Harrisons Malayalam Limited

  • Malayalam Plantations Ltd. has been shown as the holder of the Estate in the revenue records.
  • Unless and until the Government establishes its title in a competent civil court, the Government is not entitled to decline acceptance of land tax from the petitioner.
  • Right to property is a right guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
  • It includes the right to enjoy the property without being subjected to any restrictions other than any restrictions imposed by law.
  • Being the registered holder of the land, the petitioner is entitled to remit land tax
  • Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., is successor in title from Malayalam Plantations Ltd., is the land holder as per the provisions under the Kerala Land Tax Act.
  • Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., is successor in title from predecessor in title, i.e., Malayalam Plantations Ltd., is the land holder as per the provisions under the Kerala Land Tax Act

Provisions of Law

Section 3(3) of the  Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, defines ‘landholder’. It reads as under:

  • “3. Definitions  – In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- (1) ….. (2) …..
  • (3) ‘landholder‘ means,-
    • (a) in relation to any land held by a cultivating tenant as defined in the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964), such cultivating tenant;
    • (b) in relation to any land in the possession of a kanam tenant as defined in the Kanam Tenancy Act, 1955 (XXIV of 1955), such kanam tenant;
    • (c) in relation to any land which has not been surveyed and it not held by a cultivating tenant referred to in sub-clause (a), the proprietor of such land;
    • (d) in relation to any other land, the registered holder for the time being of such land, and includes his legal representatives and assigned and any person who under any law for the time being in force is liable for the payment of public revenue due in respect of the land held by him.”
  •  Section 5(2) of of the Kerala Land Tax Act directs – basic tax charged on any land shall be paid by the ‘land holder’. It reads as under:
  • “5. Charge of land tax—
    • (1) ….
    • (2) The basic tax charged on any land shall be paid by the land holder of that land before such date as may be prescribed:
      • Provided that where- (i) the landholder in respect of any land is a person referred to in sub-clause (c) or subclause (d) of clause (3) of Section 3;
      • (ii) such land is in the possession of a tenant or other person not being the landholder; and
      • (iii) the income obtained by the land-holder from that land is less than the basic tax payable thereon, the excess of the basic tax over such income shall be paid by the tenant or other persons in possession.

Points of Law Considered

  • 1. Does the petitioner have a legal right to seek a writ of mandamus to effect the Transfer of Registry in favour of the petitioner, for the land tax of lands is being paid in the name of its predecessor, Malayalam Plantations Ltd., despite –
    • its failure to produce documents of title before the High Court to show that it is the ‘registered holder’ and
    • it has not chosen to submit a proper application, with supporting documents, before the competent authority.
  • 2. Can the Government, by a Government Order, impose a condition that the land tax paid by Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. shall be received subject to the final decision in the civil suit proposed to be filed by the State against the petitioner?”

Read also:

Findings

  • 1. The petitioner has no legal right to seek a writ of mandamus to effect the Transfer of Registry in favour of the petitioner, since –
    • it failed to produce documents of title before the High Court to show that it is the ‘registered holder’ and
    • it has not chosen to submit a proper application, with supporting documents, before the competent authority
  • In Ponnanthodiyil Sreedevi Amma v. District Collector, Malappuram [2009 (2) KHC 833] enumerated persons who come within the definition of land holder under sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (3) of Section 3 of the said Act.
  • In Vijayarajan M.D. v. Tahsildar [2013 (2) KLT SN 119], a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the payment of land tax is to be made by the holder of the land and that is in tune with the relevant provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act.
  • In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 111], the Apex Court held that when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all.
  • 2. Of course, the question regarding title, which if ultimately decided by the competent civil court may have a bearing on the question as to who is the registered holder the land. Still, the condition imposed in the Government order, to the extent it stipulates that the land tax received from the petitioner, i.e., Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. and its assignees shall be subject to the final decision in the civil suit proposed to be filed by the State, is not sustainable in law. It is set aside for the following reasons:
    • Entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person.
    • Entries in revenue records have only ‘fiscal purpose’, i.e., for payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries.
    • Mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes the title of the property nor has it any presumptive value on title.
    • The mere fact that any of the disputing parties had paid basic tax for any particular period cannot be taken as a fact conferring a right upon such party for continued payment of basic tax.
  • However, the State will have the right to seek appropriate interim reliefs in the original suits filed against the petitioner, in respect of the lands in question.

End Notes

No findings on the title in the previous decision – [2018 (2) KLT 369]

The High Court also held in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Others (2026:KER:19290) as under:

  • “14. On the aforesaid contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, we notice the specific contention raised by the learned Advocate General, after referring to paragraphs 27, 98 and 141 of the decision of the Division Bench in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. [2018 (2) KLT 369], that no such findings on title of the subject properties are there in the said decision. Relevant portion of paragraphs 27, 98 and 141 of the said decision are extracted hereunder;
    • “27. ……….. The essential contention urged is on jurisdiction, or the absolute lack of it under the KLC Act to proceed against the properties which cannot be said to be either “Government land” or “puramboke land” as defined under the KLC Act. HML asserts their title and possession on the various properties as described in the Schedules. The Special Officer appointed under the KLC Act has absolutely no jurisdiction to proceedagainst lands owned by anyone other than the Government. The title is traced without interruption to about 100 years prior and has been obtained by the petitioner, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (for brevity “Companies Act”), by way of an indenture of 08.03.1923 bearing Deed No.1006 of 1923. The original of the said deed has been deposited before this Court and a copy has been produced as Ext.P22(b). The submissions revolve on this indenture; the efficacy of which is seriously put to test by the State and the party respondents. HML and its assignees having raised the ground of title, as had been accepted by the Government too, evident from the revenue records; the proceedings are ill motivated, for reason of it having originated on mere paper reports. Further the question of valid title having been raised, the Special Officer appointed under the KLC Act is divested of jurisdiction to further proceed.
    • xxx xxx
    • 98. ……….. We, however, make it clear that we are not called upon to examine the title of the lands, as asserted by HML. We would hence not be required to examine all of the title deeds or the purchase certificates, tax receipts, inter-parte decisions, etc. We remind ourselves that we are only looking at the question of jurisdiction under the KLC Act. If, prima facie, a bona fide dispute is discernible on title, then necessarily the parties would have to be relegated to the Civil Court; without ourselves venturing on an enquiry, which we find ourselves incompetent to embark upon, in a proceeding under Article 226.
    • xxx xxx
    • 141. …………Title cannot be adjudicated under the KLC Act intended only at eviction of unauthorized occupation. Title to establish it or to controvert it, has to be adjudicated before a civil court. Title we reiterate, in this contest, we have not found on the petitioners, which we are incompetent to do in the present proceedings. Title has to be found after adducing evidence in a properly initiated civil proceedings, if the State ventures so, to institute. There is no cause of action for the petitioners to approach the civil court to establish title under Section 20 of the KLC Act, the proceedings under the Act having been set aside by us.”
  1. A reading of paragraph 141 of the decision would make it explicitly clear that the
    Division Bench did not decide the question of the title of the petitioner, since the High Court is incompetent to decide such an issue in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we find no force in the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the facts relating to the ownership and possession of the plantations, including the estates which are subject matter of these writ petitions, were concluded by the Division Bench, in favour of the petitioner, in the decision in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. [2018 (2) KLT 369] and the 1st respondent State has issued the Government order dated 06.06.2019 to overreach the said decision of the Division Bench.”

How to Subscribe ‘IndianLawLive’? Click here – “How to Subscribe free “

Read in this Cluster (Click on the Topic)

Civil Suits: Procedure & Principles

Book No, 1 – Civil Procedure Code

Principles and Procedure

PROPERTY LAW

Title, ownership and Possession

Recovery of Possession: 

Adverse Possession

Land Laws/ Transfer of Property Act

Land Reform Laws

Power of attorney

Evidence Act – General

Sec. 65B

Admission, Relevancy and Proof

Law on Documents

Documents – Proof and Presumption

Interpretation

Contract Act

Law on Damages

Easement

Stamp Act & Registration

Divorce/Marriage

Negotiable Instruments Act

Criminal

Arbitration

Will

Book No. 2: A Handbook on Constitutional Issues

Religious issues

Book No. 3: Common Law of CLUBS and SOCIETIES in India

Book No. 4: Common Law of TRUSTS in India

Unknown's avatar

Published by sajikoduvath

Leave a Comment