Allowed

Benny K.T. v. District Collector

Kerala HC6 Mar 2013WP(C)/21637/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged revenue notices under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act based on incorrect land classification. The court held that pendency of a related civil suit did not bar consideration of the petitioners' claim to correct the BTR register entry from Karam pathinja tharise to Pandaravaka Verumpattam.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P15 set aside; 3rd respondent directed to consider request to modify BTR register; further proceedings under Ext.P5 and P6 kept in abeyance.

Benny K.T. Vs District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/15TH PHALGUNA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 21637 of 2012 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. BENNY K.T. AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS, KUNALI HOUSE, KUMARANELLORE VILLAGE, WADAKKANCHERY.

¶8

2. ROY FRANCIS, S/O. FRANCIS, AGED 45 YEARS, KURUTHOOKULANGARA HOUSE, ENKAKAD DESOM, ENLEAKAD VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.RADHAKRISHNAN SRI.MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 003.

¶12

2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR - 680 003.

¶13

3. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALAPPILLY TALUK, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 582.

¶14

4. VILLAGE OFFICER, WADAKKANCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR - 680 582.

¶15

R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

WPC.NO.21637/2012 D

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 4335/2006 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, WADAKKANCHERY DATED 30/10/2006.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO. 4336/2006 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, WADAKKANCHERY DATED 30/10/2006.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 31/01/2007.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 31/01/2007.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P5-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE KERALA LAND CONSERVANCY ACT, 1957 DATED 07/06/2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE IST PETITIONER.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P6-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE KERALA LAND CONSERVANCY ACT, 1957 DATED 07/06/2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P7-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBITS-P5 AND P6 NOTICES DTD. NIL.

¶28

EXHIBIT-P8-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/08/2007 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXHIBIT-P9-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/10/2011 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXHIBIT-P10-TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION/REPRESENTATION DATED 24/02/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE IST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXHIBIT-P11-TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION/REPRESENTATION DATED 24/02/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶32

EXHIBIT-P12-TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT REGISTER OF THE VILLAGE.

¶33

EXHIBIT-P13-TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS.

..2/-

Kss

..2....

WPC.NO.21637/2012 D

¶38

EXHIBIT-P14-TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P15-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/03/2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶39

EXHIBIT P16: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3/1120.

¶40

EXHIBIT P17: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.1031/62 OF WADAKKANCHERY SUB-REGISTRY.

¶41

EXHIBIT P18: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT.

¶42

EXHIBIT P19: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT.

¶43

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

W.P.(C) No. 21637 2012 - D

¶50

--------------------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th March, 2013

¶51

Petitioners challenge Exts.P5, P6 and P15. Exts.P5 and P6 relate to notice issued by the revenue authorities to the petitioner under Section 12 of the Land Conservancy Act, 1957. Ext.P5 is issued to the 1^st petitioner in respect of 1.150 cents of land in Sy. No.754/1 of Wadakancherry Village. According to the revenue authorities, the said property is described as Karam pathinja tharise. Ext.P6 is a similar notice with reference to the same extent and Survey number of land issued to the 2^nd petitioner.

¶52

According to the petitioners these properties absolutely belongs to the petitioners and all the necessary documents and prior title deeds to prove their ownership were submitted before the Tahsildar.

¶53

W.P.(C) No. 21637/2012 - D

¶54

¶55

But, having received the documents, no orders were passed by the Tahsildar.

¶56

In the meantime, the petitioners approached the Tahsildar for correcting the entry in the BTR register as the properties were described as Karam pathinja tharise. According to the petitioners, the property is Pandaravaka Verumpattam as evident from survey and settlement register produced as Exts.P12 and P13. Though these documents were produced, the Tahsildar issued Ext.P15 stating that since a civil appeal is pending as A.S.No.188/2009, without a final judgment in the said case, a decision with reference to the petitioners' property cannot be taken.

¶57

According to the petitioners, as far as the petitioners' claim is concerned, the matter is covered by the settlement register Ext.P12 and P13 in which the property is described as Pandaravaka

¶58

¶59

W.P.(C) No. 21637/2012 - D

¶60

Verummpattam, which is treated as proprietary interest as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Purushothaman Namboodiri v. State of Kerala (1962 K.L.T. 1 (S.C). as well as the proclamation issued by the Cochin Government.

¶61

Counter affidavit is filed by the 3^rd respondent inter alia contending that since the BTR register shows that the property is Karam Pathinja. Tharisu it is Government land and therefore the proceedings had been initiated under the Land Conservancy Act for taking back possession of the property. Still it is further contended that though the tax had been remitted in respect of the property, actually the payments were received as fee for sketch. But, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners the actual tax was being remitted to the revenue authorities.

¶62

W.P.(C) No. 21637/2012 - D

¶63

¶64

Still further it is contended in paragraph 6

¶65

of the affidavit that Pandaravaka Verumpattam does not confer any title on the petitioner. This argument does not appear to be correct as Pandaravaka Verumpattam land had already been given proprietary interest by way of Royal proclamation which is already confirmed by the Supreme Court in Purushothaman Namboodiri v. State of Kerala (1962 K.L.T. 1 (S.C).

¶66

Therefore as matters stand now, I do not

¶67

think that the pendency of the civil dispute between some other claimants in respect of puramboke land will not preclude the revenue authorities from considering the claim of the petitioners.

¶68

In the result, Ext.P15 is liable to be set aside and appropriate directions are to be issued to the

¶69

W.P.(C) No. 21637/2012 - D

¶70

¶71

3^rd respondent to consider the request of the petitioners for modifying the BTR register.

¶72

Hence, the writ petition is allowed. Ext. P15 is set aside. The 3^rd respondent is directed to consider the request of the petitioners for change of entry in the BTR register and appropriate orders may be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Until an order is passed with reference to the aforesaid request of the petitioner, further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P5 and P6 shall be kept in abeyance.

¶73

Sd/-

¶74

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶75

rka

¶76

/true copy/

Benny K.T. v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Benny K.T. v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.K.Raju Vs Mahatma Gandhi University

Thresiamma Joseph Vs the Thodupuzha Block Vanitha Society Ltd.

Joseph Rajan F Vs State of Kerala

Gokulan.K. Vs State of Kerala

Sreeja Sreedharan Vs the District Educational Officer

Top Constructions Vs the Government of Kerala