Allowed

Rajive Paul v. Tahasildar

Kerala HC6 Dec 2017WP(C)/371/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged land classified as paddy/wetland. Court relied on Remote Sensing report noting land is converted, not paddy/wetland. Directed authorities to exclude land from data bank and update tax registers via KLU Order.

What did the court decide?

Directing LLMC to exclude land from data bank, issue certificate, and ensure tax authorities update records based on Kerala Land Utilisation Order.

Rajive Paul Vs Tahasildar — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 371 of 2017 (V) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

**---------RAJIVE PAUL, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. C.P.PAUL, MANAGING DIRECTOR, CHUNGATH BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., ASRAMAM, KADAPPAKKADA P.O., KOLLAM AND RESIDING AT CHUNGATH HOUSE, HOUSE NO.VI/553A, ASRAMAM, KADAPPAKKADA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM) RESPONDENTS: ----------1. TAHASILDAR, ALWAYE TALUK OFFICE, ALWAYE, PIN-683101. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683578 *ADDL.RESONDENTS 3 & 4 ARE IMPLEADED: 3. CHAIRMAN, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE (LLMC), CHENGAMANAD PANCHAYAT, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683578. 4. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, ALWAYE TALUK OFFICE, ALWAYE, PIN-683101. *ADDL. RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 9.3.2017 IN IA.3823/2017. ADDL.5TH RESPONDENT IMPLEADED: 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAKKANAD. ADDL.R5 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 6.12.2017 IN WPC.371/2017. * THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI. THE ADDRESS OF THE ADDL.5TH RESPONDENT CORRECTED VIDE ORDER DATED 2.11.2018 IN I.A.5/2018. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶8

¶9

WP(C).No. 371 of 2017 (V)

¶10

APPENDIX

¶11

PETITIONER(S)' --------------	EXHIBITS ---------
EXHIBIT P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2072/12 OF THE S.R.O CHENGAMANAD
EXHIBIT P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2073/12 OF THE S.R.O. CHENGAMANAD
EXHIBIT P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.5366217 DATED 05.05.2016 OF THE CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE
EXHIBIT P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.5366218 DATED 05.05.2016 OF THE CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE
EXHIBIT P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 04.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE CHENGAMANAD PANCHAYAT
EXHIBIT P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE FIRE SAFETY CLEARANCE ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FIRE & RESCUE SERVICES GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DATED 01.09.2016
EXHIBIT P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT GIVEN BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DATED 04.10.2016
EXHIBIT P8:	TRUE COPY OF THE HEIGHT CLEARANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA DATED 06.09.2016
EXHIBIT P9:	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 21.11.2016
EXHIBIT P10:	TRUE COPY OF THE FORM VI NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ADDITIONAL THIRD RESPONDENT

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE

¶13

¶14

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶15

W.P.(C).No.371 Of 2017 (V)

¶16

..................................................................... Dated this the 6^th day of December, 2017

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The petitioner is stated to be in absolute ownership and possession of properties in Re-Survey No.376/2-1, 376/3-1, 376/3-2, 376/2-2 and 376/3-1 of Chengamanad Village. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the lands have been erroneously described as “Nilam” in the Basic Tax Register whereas in actual fact they are converted land.

¶19

When the writ petition came up for admission, this Court directed the Local Level Monitoring Committee [LLMC], to submit a report with regard to the lie and nature of the land. A report dated 22.05.2017 has since been filed by the Director of the Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSRSEC), and on the basis of the same, the LLMC has also submitted a report indicating that the land in question is not a paddy land or wetland for the purposes of inclusion in the land data bank prepared for the region.

¶20

-2-

¶21

W.P.(C).No. 371 of 2017

¶22

Taking note of the said report of the LLMC, the writ petition is allowed,

¶23

(i) by declaring that the property of the petitioner situated in Re-Survey No.376/2-1, 376/3-1, 376/3-2, 376/2-2 and 376/3-1 of Chengamanad Village, is not either paddy land or wetland, for the purposes of inclusion in the Land Data Bank prepared in accordance with the 2008 Act.

¶24

(ii) The additional 3^rd respondent LLMC shall exclude the aforesaid land belonging to the petitioner from the land data bank prepared for the region and issue a certificate to the petitioner within 7 days from today evidencing the said fact. If the data bank is at the draft stage, the land shall be excluded before finalising the data bank, and notifying the same. If, on the other hand, the data bank has already been finalised, and notified through publication in Gazette, then the additional 3^rd respondent shall issue a corrigendum notification in the Gazette. In the meanwhile, the additional 3^rd respondent shall, after excluding the land from the data bank, issue a certificate to the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, certifying that the land in question has been excluded from the data bank. The petitioner can utilise the said certificate for approaching the

¶25

-3-

¶26

W.P.(C).No. 371 of 2017

¶27

additional 5^th respondent, the authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order [hereinafter referred to as the 'KLU Order'] for getting permission to utilise the land for other purposes.

¶28

(iii) The petitioner shall, on receipt of the certificate from the LLMC, and the order permitting conversion under the KLU Order, produce copies of the same before the Land Tax Authorities, for causing a fresh assessment and consequential change in classification of the land in the Basic Tax Register.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

mns/06.12.17

Rajive Paul v. Tahasildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajive Paul v. Tahasildar

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

Sajeevan K.K Vs the Secretary

P.Venugopal Vs the Secretary, Kollengode Gramapanchayat

Ushakumari Vs Thodupuzha Municipality

Jaison Mathew Vs the State of Kerala

Jisha George Vs the State of Kerala

Biju Vs the Vathikudy Grama Panchayat