Dismissed

Mariakutty Abraham v. the Dsitrict Collector

Kerala HC1 Jul 2016WP(C)/28762/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner sought to correct a Basic Tax Register entry, classifying her dry land as wet land. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the court held such correction was impermissible and directions could not be issued.

What did the court decide?

No directions were issued to correct the Basic Tax Register; the petitioner was directed to leave the matter to the District Collector.

Mariakutty Abraham Vs the Dsitrict Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2016/10TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 28762 of 2012 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER : -

¶7

MARIAKUTTY ABRAHAM, PUTHUSSERIL, W/O.ABRAHAM MATHAI PUTHUSSERIL, PUTHUSSERIL HOUSE, THURUTHY P.O., PUZHUKKAD KARA, VENGUR WEST VILLAGE, MUDAKKUZHA PANCHAYATH, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, THROUGH HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ABY ABRAHIM, PUTHUSERIL HOUSE, THURUTHY P.O., PUZHUKKAD KARA, VENGUR WEST VILLAGE, MUDAKKUZHA PANCHAYATH, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SREEPRAKASH K.NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENTS : -

¶10

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 030.

¶11

REVENUE DIVISIONALOFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA - 683 567.

¶12

THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, PERUMBAVUR - 683 337.

¶13

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGOOR WEST, PERUMBAVUR - 683 337.

¶14

THE MUDAKUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUDAKUZHA, PERUMBAVUR - 683337

¶15

Addl. 6. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER , MUDAKKUZHA, PIN - 684 339. (ADDL.R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 26.11.14 IN IA. No.15864/14)

¶16

R5 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN BASIL, SC, MUDAKKUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K. SANEER BY ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 28762 of 2012 (U)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED No. 1782/97 SRO, PERUMBAVUR.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER VENGOOR WEST IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER ON 20.10.12, VIDE No. 3078/12.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER VENGOOR WEST IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER ON 20.10.12 VIDE No. 3079/12.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 27.8.12 VIDE No.4193215 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER VENGOOR WEST IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY PHOTOGRAPH OF PETITIONERS PROPERTY.

¶26

EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY PETITIONER ON 26.09.12 BEFORE RESPONDENTS.

¶27

EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF VILLAGE OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO SCHEDULED PROPERTY.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

K. VINOD CHANDRAN,J.

¶33

W.P (c) No. 28762 of 2012

¶34

Dated this the 01^st day of July, 2016

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The petitioner is aggrieved with the fact that the

¶37

petitioner's property is shown as wet land in the Basic Tax Register. The petitioner has filed an application before the District Collector as per Exhibit P6 praying that BTR may be corrected and the property may be shown as dry land. The same is not permissible going by the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in RDO v. Jalaja Dileep [2015 (2) KHC 109 (SC)].

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a commission was taken out from this Court and the Commissioner has reported that it is a dry land. The Agricultural Officer has reported that the land is bounded on all four sides by a compound wall and gate is seen erected on the compound wall, facing public road. The report also indicates that the land is fully converted during the year

¶39

W.P (c) No. 28762 of 2012

¶40

¶41

2012, and it is also reported that the erstwhile Agricultural Officer had filed a report dated 07.04.2012 noticing unauthorized land filling, which is available in the files of the Krishi Bhavan. The land is reported as 'Nilam' in the notified data bank is the specific averment made by the Agricultural Officer.

¶42

In such circumstances, the land seen as dry land by the Commissioner can only be deemed to have been one filled up after the coming into force of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. In such circumstance, no directions can be issued in the above case. The District Collector would be entitled to take appropriate proceedings under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008.

¶43

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶44

K. VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE

¶45

DMR/-

Mariakutty Abraham v. the Dsitrict Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariakutty Abraham v. the Dsitrict 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

Suresh Kumar.C Vs Dr.M.Madhavikutty

Parameswaran Vs the Secretary ,Municipal Corporation

The Chairman,a.P.M.Transport Public Ltd. Vs P.P.Ouseph

K.M.Santhosh Vs Arijith Basu

Raveendran P.S. Vs R. Rajasekharan Nair

T.Abdul Khader Haji Vs the Special Tahasildar (L.a) Kasaragod