Cyriac Joseph vs The Tahasildar (Land Records) on 1 December, 2020

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Cyriac Joseph vs The Tahasildar (Land Records) on 1 December, 2020

Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

TUESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA,
                           1942

                  WP(C).No.26495 OF 2020(J)


PETITIONER/S:

            CYRIAC JOSEPH,
            AGED 52 YEARS,
            S/O.JOSEPH, KALAPURAKKAL,
            KAWADIYAR, MUTTADA P.O.,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 025.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
            SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW

RESPONDENT/S:

     1      THE TAHASILDAR (LAND RECORDS),
            TALUK OFFICE,
            KOTTAYAM P.O. - 686 001.

     2      THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
            VILLAGE OFFICE,
            MUTTAMBALAM,
            KOTTAYAM- 686 002.



            SRI.K.J.MANURAJ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP         FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME         DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.26495 of 2020
                                                  2




                                 W.P.(C) No.26495 of 2020
                           -----------------------------------------------

                                        JUDGMENT

Petitioner holds an item of land measuring 12.15 Ares in Muttambalam Village. Although the land of the petitioner is shown in the revenue records as paddy land, the same was lying as a dry land when the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act) came into force. Earlier, the predecessor of the petitioner had obtained permission from the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order for making use of the larger area including the land which is now held by the petitioner, for other purposes. Ext.P2 is the order obtained by the predecessor of the petitioner in this regard. On 29.10.2020, the petitioner has preferred an application before the first respondent for reassessing the land as dry land under the Kerala Land Tax Act and also for making appropriate corrections in the revenue records pertaining to the classification of the land. Ext.P7 is the application preferred by the petitioner for the said purpose. The grievance of the petitioner concerns the delay on the part of the first respondent in taking a decision on Ext.P7 application.

W.P.(C) No.26495 of 2020

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that Ext.P7 application is not being disposed of by the first respondent as he maintains the stand that the petitioner have to obtain orders under Section 27A of the Act after remitting the prescribed fee, for the relief claimed in Ext.P7 application.

4. In Renji K. Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2019 (2) KLT 262, this court held that if the holder of a land which is not included in the data bank prepared under the Act prefers an application for permission to make use of the land for other purposes under the Land Utilization Order before the coming into force of Act 29 of 2018, in terms of which Sections 27A and 27C were introduced to the Act, the said provisions cannot be pressed into service against such a land. In the case on hand, the land of the petitioner is covered by an order under the Land Utilization Order long before Act 29 of 2018. In other words, the provisions of Act 29 of 2018 cannot be pressed into service in respect of the land of the petitioner. Further, in Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2020 (5) KLT 403, this Court held that where statutory permission for change of user of land has been obtained for conversion of a paddy land to a garden land in terms of the W.P.(C) No.26495 of 2020 4 provisions contained in the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, then it is the obligation of the competent authority under the Land Tax Act to make a fresh assessment of the land so as to collect the higher land tax for such converted land and to issue appropriate directions to the officers concerned to make additional entries in the Basic Tax Register so as to reflect the nature of the land as garden land/Purayidam in the said Register.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to reassess the land of the petitioner, treating the same as Purayidam/dry land and issue appropriate orders directing the officers concerned to change the classification of the land in the Basic Tax Register and other revenue records as Purayidam/dry land. This shall be done within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE rkj W.P.(C) No.26495 of 2020 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 30/06/2020 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTTAMBALAM.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H-2992/95 DATED 16/08/1995 ISSUED BY THE RDO, KOTTAYAM.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3408/I/2010 DATED 24/12/2010 OF ADDITIONAL SRO, KOTTAYAM.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.864/2004 DATED 22/03/2004 OF ADDITIONAL SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KOTTAYAM.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1255/2004 DATED 26/04/2004 OF ADDL. SRO, KOTTAYAM.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.2612(A)/10 DATED 02/09/2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29/10/2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FORM A. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13/10/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C) NO.21380/2020.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court