Kerala High Court
Ajitha Binu vs The Tahsildar on 14 July, 2023
Author: P Gopinath
Bench: P Gopinath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 339 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 AJITHA BINU
AGED 42 YEARS
D/O. LATE VELAYUDHAN, PARAKKA HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU,
PULIYANOM P.O, ANGAMALI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572
2 SANDRA BINU
AGED 19 YEARS
D/O. LATE BINU, PARAKKA HOUSE, PEECHANIKKADU, PULIYANOM
P.O, ANGAMALI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572
BY ADV RAFEEK. V.K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TAHSILDAR
1ST FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION, ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101.
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
ANGAMALY VILLAGE OFFICE, MANJAPRA ROAD, ANGAMALI,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683572
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FORT KOCHI, PIN-682001.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. PREETHA K.K., GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C) No.339/2023 -2-
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are absolute owners of 2.83 Ares of land in Sy.No.104/3-5 of Angamalay Village in Ernakulam District. The land was purchased by the petitioner along with her late husband through registered sale deed No.748/2006 of Angamaly SRO. The 1st petitioner has executed Ext.P2 settlement deed in favour of the 2nd petitioner. The petitioners have approached this court being aggrieved by the fact that when the 2nd respondent was approached to accept land tax in the name of the 2nd petitioner on account of Ext.P2 settlement deed, the 2 nd respondent informed that tax could be accepted describing the land only as 'Nilam' and not as 'Purayidam'. The petitioners rely on Ext.P3 tax receipt, Ext.P4 extract of Thandaper account and the fact that there is a residential building situated in the property and also the fact that the property is not included in the Data Bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 to establish that the stand taken by the 2nd respondent is incorrect in law.
2. A statement has been filed by the 1 st respondent, following directions of this court, wherein it is stated as follows;
"2. It is submitted that, the petitioners are the absolute owners and in possession of the land having an extent of 2.83 Ares in Sy. No.104/3-5 of Angamaly Village in Aluva Taluk. According to the petitioner she and her late husband purchased the property as per sale deed No.748/06 dated 08-02- 2006. Later the 1st petitioner has executed a settlement deed in favour of the 2nd petitioner. According to the petitioner the property of the petitioners is described as Purahidam in the BTR well as in the Thandaper account and was paying the tax regularly. The property is not included in the Data Bank. When they approached the 2nd respondent, Village Officer, Angamaly to accept the land tax in the name of the 2 nd petitioner, and the 2nd respondent had informed that he can accept the land tax only as Nilam since the property is described in the ROR as Nilam.
3. The prayer of the petitioner is to effect mutation of the property of 2.83 Ares comprised in Sy. No.104/3-5 of Angamaly Village in the name of the 2 nd petitioner describing the property as Purayidom and to accept land tax. It is W.P(C) No.339/2023 -3- humbly submitted that as per the village records, the aforesaid property is described as Nilam. The property is lying as 'Nilam' in BTR in Thandaper No.711 and the following Thandaper No.10180 and 7365. The petitioner had been paying land tax as 'Nilam' till the mutation was effected before the online entry.
4. It is humbly submitted that the category of the land of the petitioner is Nilam as per BTR and other village records. When the online entry of the village records has been taken place, in some cases the category was mistakenly entered as Purayidom. In this case ROR was issued to the petitioner and the online mutation was executed describing the category of the land as Purayidam. When the mistake was found about of this entry, action was taken by the 2nd respondent to recently the mistake. The category of the property of the petitioner is Nilam. The request of the petitioner is to get the mutation in the name of the 2 nd petitioner as purayidam. This respondent is not the authority to change the category of the property. The petitioner has to submit necessary application in online before the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, For Kochi in the prescribed format for making the category change."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are put to great prejudice on account of the fact that eventhough it is stated in the statement filed by the 1st respondent that in order to change the category of the land, the petitioners have to file necessary applications before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Fort Kochi, the petitioners are unable to even upload the application on account of the fact that the land of the petitioners was already described as 'Puryidam'.
4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, I am of the view that the petitioners must be permitted to upload the necessary applications for correcting the nature of the land in revenue records either in online mode or by filing a physical copy before the RDO, who is stated to the competent authority. The petitioner cannot be made to run from pillar to post stating that the petitioner cannot pay tax on the land as 'Purayidam' and at the same time the petitioners are W.P(C) No.339/2023 -4- not permitted to upload any application for change of nature of the land. The extent of land is only 2.83 Ares and the pleadings in the writ petition suggest that there is a residential house in the said property. The 1 st petitioner is a widow and the 2 nd petitioner is daughter of the 1st petitioner. Taking the aforesaid fact also into consideration it is directed that the mutation shall be effected in the name of the 2 nd petitioner and the 2nd petitioner shall be permitted to pay tax along with an endorsement that this will be subject to orders to be passed by the concerned RDO on the application for conversion of land to be submitted by the petitioners jointly or by the 2nd petitioner as the case may be. If the petitioners are not unable to upload the application in online mode, it is open to the petitioners to file a manual application before the RDO, Fort Kochi, who shall consider such application and take a decision thereon within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In the light of the above findings the following directions are issued;
(i) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi is suo moto impleaded as additional 3rd respondent in the writ petition.
(ii) The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to accept land tax from the 2 nd petitioner in respect of the 2.83 Ares of land obtained by her under Ext.P2 after effecting mutation in her name as 'Purayidam' together with an endorsement that the said acceptance of land tax is subject to the orders to be passed by the additional 3 rd respondent in the application to be filed for changing the nature of land. The direction to accept land tax as 'Purayidam' is only on account of the fact that tax was W.P(C) No.339/2023 -5- being accepted earlier as 'Purayidam'. The direction to accept tax as 'Purayidam' will not in any manner compel the RDO to permit change of nature of the land, in the application to be filed by the petitioners.
(iii) The petitioners will file an application before the RDO within a period of two weeks from today either in the online mode or by submitting physical copy before the additional 3rd respondent together with a certified copy of this judgment.
(iv) Mutation and the permission to pay land tax as directed above will be only if the petitioners produce proof that an application has been filed before the additional 3rd respondent as directed in this judgment and within the time permitted.
(v) The additional 3rd respondent shall endeavour to dispose of the application to be filed by the petitioners within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
(vi) I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and it will be open to the additional 3 rd respondent to decide the application in accordance with law.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P. JUDGE AMG W.P(C) No.339/2023 -6- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 339/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 748/2006 DATED 08.02.2006 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 1991/I/2022 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2021-22 DATED 07.10.2021 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT DATED 01.07.2022 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 25.08.2022 ISSUED BY THE ANGAMALI MUNICIPALITY Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE BTR EXTRACT DATED 01.03.2023 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTIALLY FILLED FORM 6 APPLICATION IN REVENUE ESERVICES DATED 24.03.2023 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTIALLY FILLED FORM 5 ONLINE APPLICATION IN REVENUE ESERVICES DATED 24.03.2023