Allowed

Raphi Antony v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC21 Jan 2016WP(C)/8899/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged inaction by revenue officials to correct basic tax register entries. The court held the petitioner can use the land for dry land purposes and directed the Tahsildar to reassess tax within two months under Section 6A of the Land Tax Act if requested.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to use land for dry land purposes; Tahsildar directed to reassess tax within two months under Section 6A of the Land Tax Act.

Raphi Antony Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2016/1ST MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 8899 of 2014 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

RAPHI ANTONY, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.PONTHEKKAN ANTONY, RESIDING AT CARMEL PARK, MISSION QUARTERS.P.O, THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR- 680 003.

¶11

2. THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR- 680 020.

¶12

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ARANATTUKARA VILLAGE, ARANATTUKARA.P.O, THRISSUR- 680 618.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ KUNJACHAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

WP(C).No. 8899 of 2014 (J)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXT.P1:	TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.5534/08 OF S.R.O.THRISSUR.
EXT.P2:	TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1107/2009 OF S.R.O.THRISSUR.
EXT.P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 04.03.1995.
EXT.P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 30.06.1995.
EXT.P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 05.05.2012.
EXT.P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, DATED 28.01.2014 BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶26

================== W.P.(C).No. 8899 of 2014

¶27

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

¶28

Dated this the 21^st day of January, 2016

¶29

The petitioner approached this Court on account of inaction on the part of the respondent to correct the basic tax register on the strength of under section Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order.

¶30

It appears that the Tahsildar refused to effect further changes as there is no power to the revenue officials to correct such changes. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking an implementation of above correction.

¶31

3. In para 5 of the counter, it is stated as follows:

¶32

“5. It is submitted that the respondents have no power or authority to correct the description of the land in BTR or Revenue Records. There is no statutory provision to make corrections in the Revenue Records or BTR. There is no direction to correct the description of the land in Exhibit P5 proceedings. Since the land owner had obtained an order to utilize the land for other purpose as per Kerala Land Utilization Order Clause 6 as early as in 1995, there is no impediment to the land owners to utilize the land for the purpose mentioned in the said order. There is no need of correcting the BTR or Revenue Records to utilize the land for the purpose mentioned in the order dated 04.03.1995. Since there is no direction in Exhibit P5 to correct the BTR there is no question of implementation of the order.”

¶33

W.P.(C).No. 8899 of 2014 - : 2 :-

¶34

In view of the fact that the petitioner has already armed with an order under the Kerala Land Utilization Order and the land is a converted land, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is free to use this land as a dry land for all practical purposes. If the petitioner approaches the Tahsildar to reassess the land tax, appropriate decision shall be taken by the Tahsildar within two months of such application in terms of Section 6A of the Land Tax Act.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of, as above.

¶36

sd/-

¶37

sab

¶38

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

Raphi Antony v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raphi Antony v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanagendran Vs State of Kerala

Korah John Vs State of Kerala

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Rajan Vs the State of Kerala

Abdulla M. Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran K Vs State of Kerala