Allowed

Jose Ponatt v. the Village Officer

Kerala HC30 Jun 2014WP(C)/8219/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking correction of the Basic Tax Register entries for the petitioner's property. The Court directed the respondent authorities to correct the description from Nilam/Paddy field to Garden Land, reflecting the actual rocky and non-agricultural nature of the land.

What did the court decide?

Respondent authorities directed to make necessary corrections in the Basic Tax Register regarding the nature of the petitioner's property within one month.

Jose Ponatt Vs the Village Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/9TH ASHADHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 8219 of 2014 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER : -

¶7

JOSE POONATT, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, AYAVANA P.O, KARIMATTAM KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI

¶9

SRI. BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI SRI. JEEVAN MATHEW MANAYANI

¶10

RESPONDENTS : -

¶11

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERANELLOOR VILLAGE, ERANELLOOR P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 665.

¶12

THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, AYAVANA P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA DISTRICT- 686 665.

¶13

THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 665.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANEETHA RAVEENDRAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 8219 of 2014 (B)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : -

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2 : THE BASIC TAX REGISTER WITH REGARD TO THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3 : THE SKETCH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.

¶24

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER BEFORE THE THRID RESPONDENT DATED 5-10-2013.

¶25

EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR MUVATTUPUZHA TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 29-10-2013.

¶27

EXHIBIT P8 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 15-02-2014.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : - NIL.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.

W.P.C.No.8219 of 2014

¶34

Dated this the 30^th day of June, 2014

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Petitioner has approached this Court inter alia seeking correction of the Basic Tax Register (BTR) with reference to the property having an extent of 2 cents in Sy.No.93/1, 82 cents in Survey No.93/1/2 and 19 cents in 98/1A/4 in Enanelloor village. In the BTR the 82 cents and 2 cents are shown as 'Nilam' and 19 cents as 'garden land'. The petitioner had approached the respondent authorities for changing the entry in the Basic Tax Register inter alia stating that the entire land is rocky hilly trict. Reference is made to report of the Tahsildar as Ext.P7, It is inter alia stated that the land in question is shown as paddy field as per the BTR entries with reference to 82 cents in Survey No.93/1/2 and 2 cents in Survey No.93/1. Presently the property is seen as garden land. It is further stated that on the northern side of the property it is seen that quarrying activities had been done. On the eastern side there are Aracanut trees and even Teak trees. There are no other agricultural activities in the said property. On an enquiry conducted in the locality, it was

¶37

W.P.(C) No.8219 of 2014

¶38

¶39

understood that for the last 25 years there is no paddy cultivation in the area. Data Bank entries does not indicate that the property is included as paddy land.

¶40

Having regard to these factual situation, I am of the view that if the property is not being used, and is not suitable for paddy cultivation, there is no reason why the revenue authorities should not make necessary corrections in the BTR. The said Register is maintained for the purpose of collecting tax and for identifying the property. If over a period of time the said land has been converted to garden land and there is no paddy cultivation, the respondent authorities can make necessary corrections in the BTR. This view has been clarified by this Court in Jalaja Dileep Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer [2012(3) KLT 333]. Having regard to these factual situation, I am of the view that since the land is rocky and has been converted long back and is used for cultivation, necessary corrections can be made by the revenue authorities in the BTR.

¶41

Under these circumstances, this writ petition is allowed as under:

¶42

The respondent authorities shall make necessary

¶43

W.P.(C) No.8219 of 2014

¶44

¶45

corrections in the Basic Tax Register in accordance with nature of the petitioner's property. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/

A.M.SHAFFIQUE,

JUDGE

jm/

Jose Ponatt v. the Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose Ponatt v. the Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thampan Thomas Vs District Collector

Nisha.S. Vs State of Kerala

K. Rajeevan Vs the State Human Rights Commission Represented by Its Registrar

Biju Chirattavayalil Vs State of Kerala

Thejaswini Co- Operative Hospital& Medical Research Centre Ltd. Vs Nileshwar Municipality

Eloor Vs the Secretary to Government