Disposed

Valsamma Charles v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC3 Nov 2017WP(C)/35189/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition directed the competent authority to dispose of the petitioner's application for permission to use her pre-Act converted land for construction and for fresh tax assessment as garden land, without being hampered by a Government Circular overruled by this Court.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the petitioner's application for permission to use the property for other purposes within one month of receiving the report from the Agricultural Of

Valsamma Charles Vs Revenue Divisional Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/12TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 35189 of 2017 (W) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VALSAMMA CHARLES W/O.K.C CHARLES, AGED 61,KANATHEKKATTU HOUSE, ELAMKULAM,COCHIN 17

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.C.CHARLES SRI.M.POLY MATHAI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT COCHIN

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MANURAJ

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 35189 of 2017 (W)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO 1831/1996 DATED 24/4/1996 OF THE SRO, ELAMKULAM EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 8/05/2017 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK ENTRY RELATING TO THE PROPERTY IN SURVEY NO.219/4 OF ELAMKULAM VILLAGE EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 1/6/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT OF EXHIBIT P4 APPLICATION EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 5/07/2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED 19/07/2017 EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT CIRCULAR DATED 14/4/2014 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS -----------------------

NIL

/TRUE COPY/-

PA TO JUDGE

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.35189 of 2017 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶22

Dated this the 3^rd day of November, 2017

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

1.The petitioner is the absolute owner and in possession of 15 cents of land comprised in Survey No.298/4 of Elamkulam village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam. It is stated that the property is not included in the Data Bank prepared in accordance with the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Act'). According to the petitioner, the property was converted long prior to the Act. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred an application before the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, invoking Clause 6(2) of the said order, seeking permission to use the property for other purposes including construction of building. The grievance of the petitioner concerns the inaction on the part of the competent authority under the Land Utilization Order in granting the request made by the petitioner for use of the property for other purposes.

¶25

W.P.(C).No.35189/17

¶26

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶28

If the property of the petitioner is one converted prior to the Act, the provisions of the Act would not apply to the same, as held by the Apex Court in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep (2015(1) KLT 984). If the provisions of the Act do not apply to the property of the petitioner, she is entitled to make use of the property for construction of building, after obtaining permission of the competent authority under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 [See Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector (2015(3) KLT 182)].

¶29

1. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the competent authority under the Land Utilization Order to pass order on the application preferred by the petitioner for permission to use the property for other purposes, in the light of the decision of this Court in Puthan Purakkal Joseph (supra). The Revenue Divisional Officer shall obtain a report from the Convenor of the concerned Local Level Monitoring

¶30

W.P.(C).No.35189/17

¶31

¶32

Committees under the Act to the effect that the property concerned is not shown as paddy land or wetland in terms of the data bank prepared under the Act. It is also directed that the RDO shall consider the application, after issuing notice to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the report from the Agricultural Officer.

¶33

2. Since the restrictions imposed by the Government in terms of Circular No.46848/P1/2016 dated 22.12.2016 for exercise of power under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order have been interfered with by this Court in Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2017(3) KLT 822), the direction aforesaid shall be complied with, untrammelled by the directions in the Circular referred to above. Needless to say that if the request of the petitioner under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order is granted, she shall be issued building permit by the local authority concerned, if she is otherwise entitled for the same. Likewise, it is also directed that if the request of the petitioner under Clause 6 of the Land Utilization Order is granted, the petitioner will also be entitled to apply to the authorities under

¶34

W.P.(C).No.35189/17

¶35

¶36

the Kerala Land Tax Act for fresh assessment of the lands as garden lands and if application is preferred by the petitioner in this connection, the same shall be considered by the said authorities, in the light of Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma (2015(2) KLT 516), within one month thereafter.

¶37

sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶38

Valsamma Charles v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valsamma Charles v. Revenue Divisional Officer

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

S.J.Basic Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs the District Collector

John Mathew Vs the Village Officer, Mylapra

P.T.Johny Alex Vs State of Kerala

K.a.Sebastian Vs the District Collector

Soman Karunakaran Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Pramod Das Vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram