Remanded

M/S Kallarackal Resorts (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Nov 2013WP(C)/27191/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court addressed grievances regarding the misclassification of petitioner's property as 'Nilam' instead of reclaimed land. The court directed relevant revenue authorities to conduct inspections and correct entries in data registers and tax classifications within specified timelines.

What did the court decide?

The seventh respondent directed to conduct site inspection and correct data bank entry within 6 weeks; the second respondent directed to consider representation under clause (6) of the Land Utilisatio

M/S Kallarackal Resorts (P) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 27191 of 2013 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M/S KALLARACKAL RESORTS (P) LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR-ROY JOSEPH KALLARACKAL, 47/1864, C1 1ST FLOOR, NEAR ST. ATNONY'S CHRUCH, VADUTHALA P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶9

SRI.K.M.ANEESH

¶10

SRI.ADARSH KUMAR SRI.S.NIKHIL SANKAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOHI.

¶15

4. THE TAHSILDAR KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682 021.

¶16

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER KADAMAKUDY VILLAGE, PIZHALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶17

6. THE KADAMAKUDY GRAMA PANCHAYATH PIZHALA P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY KOCHI-682 027.

¶18

7. LOCAL MONITORING COMMITTEE KADAMAKUDY VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN KADAMAKUDY-682 027.

¶19

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No. 27191 of 2013 (Y)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶24

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE NO-OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT

¶25

EXHIBIT P1(A).TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNTS MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25/7/2000.

¶26

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPROVAL DATED 3/11/2000, PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REGIONAL TROURIST OFFICE, CHENNAI.

¶27

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE STAR CLASSIFICATION ORDER PASSED BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR-TOURISM (SOUTH), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA DATED 29/1/2003.

¶28

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH DATED 11/7/2002.

¶29

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPTS FOR THE PERIOD 2002-2003 PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER'S BUILDINGS.

¶30

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST TAX RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPSONDENT PANCHAYATH.

¶31

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12/5/2000 MADE BY THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶32

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 27/9/2013.

¶33

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPROT PREPARED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) DATED 10/8/2006.

¶34

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10/10/2013 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT

¶35

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22/10/2013 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶36

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN M/S.RMD REALTORS PRIVATE LTD, V. STATE OF KERALA, BEARING NO.WPC NO.18623/2013.

¶37

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

// TRUE COPY //

P.A TP JUDGE

P.R.RAMACHANDRAMENON, J

¶42

W.P.(C). NO. 27191 OF 2013

¶43

Dated this the 26^th day of November, 2013

¶44

JUDGMENT

¶45

Petitioner is a company constituted under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act 1956, who is the owner of the land having extent of 1.02.274 comprised in Re.Sy. No. 513/3 of Kadamakudy Village in Ernakulam District. The grievances of the petitioner is with regard to the wrong classification of the property as given in the draft data bank register and also in the BTR where the property has been shown as Nilam. In spite of the factual position that it is a reclaimed land for decades, wherein various improvements have been effected including construction of building based on the plan approved by the Secretary of the Panchayat or the local authority.

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as early as in the year 2000, the physical nature of the property was certified by the Assistant Director of Agriculture vide Ext.P7, dated 12.05.2000. The concerned local authority had issued Ext.P1 No-Objection Certificate dated 25.11.2000 for the construction of the resort building in the property concerned, and necessary charges have been remitted by the petitioner as borne by Ext.P1(a) receipt, the hotel project was

¶47

W.P.(C). NO. 27191 OF 2013

¶48

¶49

approved by the competent authority under the Central Government as borne by Ext.P2 order dated 3.11.2000 and star classification has been given as per Ext.P3 dated 29.01.2003. Ext.P4 is a copy of the license issued by the Panchayat and Ext.P5 is the building tax receipt for the year 2001-02. Ext.P6 series are the tax receipts for the current year. The factual position is also discernible from Ext.P8 report of the Village Officer dated 27.09.2013 showing that the land is a reclaimed land and it got a lot of improvement including age old trees and existence of buildings therein.

¶50

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶51

the property of the petitioner is not a paddy land or wet land as defined under Section 212 or 218 of Act 28 of 2008 and because of the wrong distinction of the nature of the land in DTR and also in the draft data bank register, the petitioner filed Ext.P10 application before the 7^th respondent, the local level monitoring committee, so as to readdress the grievances of petitioner by effecting necessary correction. Similarly, Ext.P1 representation has been preferred before the 2^nd respondent for granting necessary relief in view of clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order.

¶52

W.P.(C). NO. 27191 OF 2013

¶53

¶54

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶55

The crucial question is to be considered is whether

¶56

the property was laying as a paddy land or wet land on the date of commencement of the Act and if, was not remaining as a paddy land or wet land, the matter has to be considered in the light of the relevant Provisions of Kerala Land Utilisation Order, particularly, clause (6) , as per the law declared by the Division of Bench of this Court in Praveen v. Land Revenue Commissioner [2010 (2) KLT 617] . Similarly, the competent authority to effect necessary correction, is the factual question something else, is none other than the 7^th respondent. In the above circumstances, there will be a direction to the 7^th respondent to consider Ext.P10 and pass appropriate orders after conducting a site inspection with a prior notice to the petitioner, so as to effect necessary corrections in the entries in the draft in the data bank register, which shall be done at the earliest, at any rate within '6 weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Similarly, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P11, under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and also in the light of the observations

¶57

W.P.(C). NO. 27191 OF 2013

¶58

¶59

particularly decision cited supra after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate, within

¶60

'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶61

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶62

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along

¶63

with a copy of the writ petition before the concerned respondent for further steps.

¶64

Sd/

¶65

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

jm/

\ TRUE COPY \

PA TO JUDGE

W.P.(C). NO. 27191 OF 2013

¶70

M/S Kallarackal Resorts (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kallarackal Resorts (P) Ltd. v. State of Kerala

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

Koloth Parambil Alavi Vs Aravindakshan

Sahya Haritha Sangham Vs Patil Ajith Bhagawat Rao, IAS

Subaida Beevi Vs Thambu Cherian

Varghese Kumarickal Vs State of Kerala

Baiju Vs the District Geologist, Thrissur

M.N.Vipin Vs the District Geologist, Thrissur