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

The following observations are made in Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala and others: 2026: KER: 19290 (Anil K. Narendran & S. Muralee Krishna, JJ.) with respect to ‘Transfer of Registry’:

  • 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.), discussed, inter alia, on 5th March 2026 (2026:KER:19290), the following with respect to the payment of Land Tax by the petitioner, Harrisons Malayalam Ltd.:

  • 1. Whether the petitioner (Harrisons Malayalam Ltd.) has a legal right to seek a writ of mandamus to effect the Transfer of Registry, though it has not chosen to submit a proper application, with supporting documents, before the competent authority.
  • 2. Whether the condition imposed in the Government Order – 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 sustainable in law.

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 of the Division Bench as regards Transfer of Registry

  • 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 1

No Rule Against Perpetuity in Public Law;

The Government cannot assign land on their whims and fancies

Section 11 of the TP Act says – where, on a transfer of property, an interest therein is created absolutely in favour of any person, but the terms of the transfer direct that such interest shall be applied or enjoyed by him in a particular manner, he shall be entitled to receive and dispose of such interest as if there were no such direction.

But, in Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited v. State of Kerala, 2019-2 ILR(Ker) 828; 2019 3 KHC 233; 2019-2 KLT 978 (A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.), it is held as under:

  • “6. In private law, any restriction repugnant to the interest created is void except to the extent of securing the beneficial enjoyment of another piece of property belonged to the transferor. (See Section 11 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882). The transferee, therefore, in such cases is free to enjoy property absolutely as if there were no stipulations.
  • 7. In public law, the transfer of an interest or assignment of Government land stands on a different footing. The Government is only a public trustee of the land belonging to the State. The Government cannot assign land on their whims and fancies. The land is a natural resource of utmost importance. Therefore, the Government can distribute the natural resources only adhering to the principles of public trust. No land can be assigned ignoring the public interest and detrimental to the public interest.
  • 8. The subsequent incorporation of Rule 8(3) of the Rules for cancellation of patta cannot be relied upon in this matter as the assignment was prior to the amendment. In the absence of any specific condition for cancellation of assignment in the patta or in the statutory provisions at the relevant time, this Court needs to examine the decision taken to cancel the assignment in the light of the public trust doctrine.
  • 9. In Illinois Cent Co. v. State of Illinois City of Chicago [146 US 387 (1892)], principles relating to public trust doctrine were expounded. It is appropriate to refer the opinion in that judgment which reads as follows:
    • ‘The trust devolving upon the state for the public, and which can only be discharged by the management and control of property in which the public has an interest, cannot be relinquished by a transfer of the property. The control of the state for the purposes of the trust can never be lost, except as to such parcels as are used in promoting the interests of the public therein’.
  • 10. In M.C.Mehta v. Kamal Nath and others [(1997) 1 SCC 388], the Apex Court observed that the State is the natural trustees of all resources, which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment, and the State is a trustee under a legal duty to protect the natural resources.
  • 11. In Fomento Resorts & Hotels Ltd. v. Minguel Martins, (2009) 3 SCC 571], the Apex Court held as follows:
    • “53. The public trust doctrine enjoins upon the Government to protect the resources for the enjoyment of the general public rather than to permit their use for private ownership or commercial purposes. This doctrine puts an implicit embargo on the right of the State to transfer public properties to private party if such transfer affects public interest, mandates affirmative State action for effective management of natural resources and empowers the citizens to question ineffective management thereof.
    • 54. The heart of the public trust doctrine is that it imposes limits and obligations upon government agencies and their administrators on behalf of all the people and especially future generations….”
  • 12. Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. v. Reliance Industries Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 1] at para.114 it was observed as follows:
    • “114. It must be noted that the constitutional mandate is that the natural resources belong to the people of this country. The nature of the word “vest” must be seen in the context of the public trust doctrine (PTD). Even though this doctrine has been applied in cases dealing with environmental jurisprudence, it has its broader application.”
  • 13. In the Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 1] at para.75, it was held as follows:
    • “75. The State is empowered to distribute natural resources. However, as they constitute public property/national asset, while distributing natural resources the State is bound to act in consonance with the principles of equality and public trust and ensure that no action is taken which may be detrimental to public interest. Like any other State action, constitutionalism must be reflected at every stage of the distribution of natural resources. In Article 39(b) of the Constitution it has been provided that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community should be so distributed so as to best subserve the common good, but no comprehensive legislation has been enacted to generally define natural resources and a framework for their protection. Of course, environment laws enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures deal with specific natural resources i.e. forest, air, water, coastal zones, etc.””
  • Note: Appeal to Division Bench (from Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited v. State of Kerala) is dismissed in Raphy John v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram (DB), 2022-3 KLT 679.

Original Patta for Personal Cultivation; Assignee cannot have a Better Title

In Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited v. State of Kerala, 2019-2 ILR(Ker) 828; 2019 3 KHC 233; 2019-2 KLT 978, it is held further as under:

  • “17. Admittedly, the present use of land is for commercial purposes. It is for personal gain and to subserve the private interest. Commercial purpose is not one on which the land can be assigned. The Government being a trustee is answerable to the public. The public can question if the Government had failed in its duties when it is found that the land is used for other purposes other than for it was assigned. The beneficiary of cultivation is public. That interest of the public is superadded in such assignment. Thus, even in the absence of statutory provisions or conditions in the patta, anyone can question such use of land for commercial purposes.
  • 18. This Court, in fact, had considered use of land for commercial purposes by the assignee of a patta holder, who was assigned land for personal cultivation in Haridas v. State of Kerala [2016 (4) KLT 707] and held that the assignee of original pattadhar cannot have any better claim conferred on him other than the one conveyed to the pattadhar by the assignment. The use of land for commercial purposes is a fraud on the State. The pattadhar or his assignee has a legal obligation to use the land for cultivation.
  • 19. The learned Senior Counsel argued that the Government authorities have issued certificates to run the resort and, therefore, they are estopped from urging that the petitioner had violated the patta conditions. It was also argued that the Government have waived their right to proceed against the petitioner by acknowledging the acceptance of basic tax and conferring certificates relating to tourism.      
  • 20. The equitable principles relating to estoppel and waiver cannot have a bearing when the Government is acting as a trustee. This action to protect the interest of the State. No wrong can give rise to a right. The land belongs to the State. If the Government had failed in its duty to check illegal use of land that will not give rise to an equitable right to a wrongdoer. The principles of estoppel cannot be advanced to promote one’s own wrong. This is not a case between the Government and the holder of the land. It is a matter between public interest and breach of trust by a person, who was in relation with the Government to promote the public interest. The principles of estoppel and waiver cannot be pressed against an action of the Government based on public policy. No action of the Government would bind them if it was against the public policy of the State.”

If Land Assigned for Specific Purposes, it Cannot be used for Other Purposes

Kerala High Court, in Haridas v. State of Kerala, 2016 (5) KHC 615 (K. Vinodchandran, J.), had taken a view that when land is assigned for specific purposes, it cannot be said that if there is no prohibition in using it for any other purpose then, an assignee or a subsequent owner could use it for any purpose to which a land is normally put to. Among others, it was further observed therein that the essence is in the assignment made, for a specific purpose, which survives time and tide. (Referred to in: Raphy John v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram (DB), 2022-3 KLT 679).

Subsequent Assignees of Pattaadar Cannot Claim More Rights

In R.  Haridas v. State of Kerala, 2016-5 KHC 615; 2016-4 KLT 707, held further as under:

  • “8. … The title acquired of the property, which, admittedly, were Government lands assigned under a statute. The petitioners are assignees of the original pattaadar and cannot have any rights over and above that possessed by the original assignee.
  • 9. The Assignment Rules, by Rule 4, as has been pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, has three specific purposes; for which alone land may be assigned. These are – personal cultivation, house-sites and beneficial enjoyment of adjoining registered holdings. ….  The original assignment made, as evidenced by Exhibit P2 in both the writ petitions, admittedly, is not for house-site or for beneficial enjoyment. Such an extent could have been assigned only under Rule 5 for the purpose of personal cultivation. The assignment having been specifically made under a statute and the Rules framed thereunder, none can have a legitimate expectation of enjoyment of the property over and above the purpose for which the same has been assigned.
  • 10. The subsequent assignees of the original pattaadar cannot claim any right other than that conferred on the original assignee, which Assignment on Registry was specifically for the purpose of personal cultivation. …. The prohibition has to be read into the terms of assessment when by virtue of a statutory provision the assignment is made for a specific purpose. The passage of time would not change the character of the assignment ….. . These conditions are also incorporated as ‘Conditions’ in the Patta and the respective Pattas produced are incomplete copies as will be presently noticed.
  • 13. …  It is a matter of concern and quiet a surprise that the revenue authorities in the district have been issuing recommendations like Exhibit P6; for carrying out construction activities without noticing the embargo created insofar as the constructions intended at promoting commercial activity.
  • 14. … The prescription for a permit to be obtained from the local authority is only so far as complying with any master plan for development applicable to the area and compliance of the building rules applicable to the panchayats and municipalities, as brought out under the respective statutes. This cannot create a carte blanche in favour of a permit holder to make a construction in an assigned land which would go specifically against the prescriptions laid down in the statute for such assignment. ….
  • 16. …. Hence any time it is found that the purpose for assignment is diverted from, the State could definitely take proceedings for cancellation of the assignment and either vest the lands back with the Government or assign it to others for the purpose of cultivation.
  • 17. … The assignee would have a right to hold the land and enjoy it under the terms of assignment and any violation thereat would be a reason for cancellation of the assignment made. …
  •  20. … The Revenue authorities, a law unto themselves, have been violating the provisions and colluding with the assignees causing gross damage to the ecology and environment. Be that as it may; the petitioners herein were quite aware of the conditions of assignment; though their ignorance, if at all, would have been of little consequence in the teeth of the statutory prescriptions. ….
  • 21. In any event the loss caused to the petitioners would be of no consequence when weighed with the larger public interest of averting ecological imbalance and preserving pristine lands from haphazard development; which otherwise as studies reveal; would even affect the climate of the Indian peninsula. …”

End Notes 2

1. 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.”
  • 15. 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.”

2. In Writ Petitions, besides the Facts, the Evidence also must be pleaded and annexed

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

  • “18. In Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana [(1988) 4 SCC 534] the Apex Court held that, when a point which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. The Apex Court held further that there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and a writ petition or a counter affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e., a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.”

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