Disposed

George Baby v. Tahsildar

Kerala HC1 Dec 2014WP(C)/6747/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought permission to utilize his 18.75 cent converted property for non-agricultural purposes under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. The Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the applicant's prayer and grant permission after an enquiry. The Constitutionality of the Act is not raised.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to apply to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoor, to utilize the land for other purposes under Clause 6 of the KLUO; Revenue Divisional Officer ordered to consider the application

George Baby Vs Tahsildar — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 6747 of 2014 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

GEORGE BABY, AGED 58 YEARS S/O. GEORGE, KADUVUKAL HOUSE, K.P. ROAD ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.G.RENJITH

¶9

RESPONDENT :

¶10

THE TAHSILDAR ADOOR TALUK, ADOOR.

¶11

BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.K. SOYUZ

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

...2/-

¶15

WP(C).No. 6747 of 2014 (P)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶18

EXT. P1.	THE TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED NO. 2947/2012 OF ADOOR SRO.
EXT. P2.	THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 19-2-2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ADOOR.
EXT. P3.	THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 20-11-2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ADOOR MUNICIPALITY.
EXT. P4.	THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 5-2-2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.
EXT. P5.	THE TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 19-2-2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT. P6.	THE TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 18-12-12 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO. 18956 OF 2012 (T)

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶20

EXT. R1(a) COPY OF THE ELEVANT PAGES OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶25

=========================

¶26

W.P(C).No.6747 of 2014P

¶27

============================ Dated this the 01^st day of December, 2014

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Petitioner is the owner and in possession of 18.75 cents of property comprised in resurvey Nos.650/13 and 650/14 in Block No.8 of Peringanadu Village, Adoor Taluk. Petitioner seeks a direction in terms of the judgment in Jalaja Dileep Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer (2012(3) KLT 333) to classify the property as dry land in the basic tax register. However, petitioner submits that without prejudice to the claim for declaration to classify the above land as purayidam, he may be permitted to utilize the land for other purposes under clause (6) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967.

¶30

The Collector has power under KLUO to grant permission to utilise such land for any other purposes. The Collector is defined under clause 2(a) of the KLUO which includes the Revenue Divisional Officer as well. Though the property is reclaimed before the enactment of the Act 28 of 2008, nevertheless, if the land in question was under cultivation with any food crop either three years prior to the commencement of the KLUO or after its commencement, permission from the Collector is

¶31

W.P(C).No.6747 of 2014P

¶32

¶33

necessary for utilising the above land for any other purposes. This Court in Praveen K. v. Land Revenue Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram and others [2010 (2) KHC 499] held as follows:

¶34

“If an application is made under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, the same is not liable to be dismissed before an enquiry is held by the concerned authority under the Act and a finding is entered that the land in respect of which the application is made is a paddy land or a wetland. If the land is not found to be paddy land or wetland, application has to be considered as per the provisions of the KLU.”

¶35

In Sunil v. Killimangalam Panjal 5th Ward, Nellulpadaka Samooham [2012 (4) KLT 511] another Division Bench of this Court held that permission under clause 6 can be granted for construction of building for industrial purposes also. In Praveen's case (supra) also this Court laid down the manner in which an application under clause 6 of the KLUO has to be dealt with by the Collector.

¶36

It is held in Joseph John Vs. Land Revenue Commissioner (2014(1) KLT 706) that even if the land was

¶37

W.P(C).No.6747 of 2014P

¶38

¶39

reclaimed before the Act 28 of 2008, it is not a bar to consider the application in terms of clause (6) of the KLUO.

¶40

It is admitted that property of the petitioner is recorded as converted in 1998 and there is a building in the property. Considering the nature of land and also the extent of land, I am of the view, this is a fit case where permission can be granted to the petitioner to utilize the land for other purposes. Therefore, petitioner shall approach the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoor with an application to utilize the land for other purposes in terms of clause (6) of the KLU order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoor shall consider such application within two months from the date of receipt of such application in the light of discussion as above after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶41

The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.

¶44

Sbna/03/12/14

George Baby v. Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Baby v. Tahsildar

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

Abdulla Vs K. Biju

K.B. Balachandran Vs State of Kerala

Pupthan Valappil Baburaj Vs the Sub-Divisional Magistrate

C. Jerison Vs Tahsildar

K.N. Vijayan Vs Tahsildar, Adoor Taluk

Aswathy a. Vs State Bank of Travancore