Allowed

Dr.M.a.Muhammed Afsal, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC12 Dec 2019WP(C)/4400/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed a condition imposed by the Revenue Divisional Officer requiring payment of fees under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, for an application filed under the earlier Kerala Land Utilisation Order. Relying on precedent, the Court held that conditions from the new Act could not apply to pre-existing applications.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the condition in Ext.P8 order and permitted the petitioners to use the said order including to approach the concerned Tahsildar for reassessment of tax.

Dr.M.a.Muhammed Afsal, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 21ST AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.4400 OF 2019(Y)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 DR.M.A.MUHAMMED AFSAL, AGED 61 YEARS S/O.AHAMMED M.A., RESIDING AT ARIMALA HOUSE, P.O.KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶8

2 DR.M.A.ABDUL HAFEES, AGED 59 YEARS S/O.AHAMMED M.A., RESIDING AT ARIMALA HOUSE, P.O.KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

¶9

3 DR.SHAMEEM HAFEES, AGED 49 YEARS

¶10

RESIDING AT ARIMALA HOUSE, P.O.KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.

SRI.M.SASINDRAN

SRI.V.VENUGOPAL

RESPONDENTS:

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671121.

¶16

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD -671121.

¶17

3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

GP - SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No.4400 OF 2019(Y)

¶22

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The petitioners impugn the condition imposed in Ext.P8 order to pay the fee under Section 27A(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 ('the Paddy Land Act' for short) issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO for short), under the provisions of Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU for short), asserting that the said condition could not have been imposed in the said order because it relates only to an application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act ((herein after referred to as 'the Paddy Land Act' for short).

¶25

The petitioners submit that, as has been declared by this Court in Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha & Another [2019(4) KHC 400] , an application under the KLU order made before 30.12.2017 can only be considered under the ambit of the said Order and not under the Paddy Land Act and therefore, that condition, which is impugned therein, is unsustainable and untenable in law.

¶26

In response, the learned Government Pleader submits that even though the petitioners' applications were made on 16.08.2017 , Ext.P8 was issued much later, on 12.06.2018. He says, therefore, that the condition, as imposed therein, which also

¶27

WP(C).No.4400 OF 2019(Y)

¶28

¶29

incorporates those permitted under Section 27A of the Act, are permissible and prays that the order be left uninterdicted.

¶30

Even when I hear the learned Government Pleader on

¶31

the afore lines, it is now well settled through the judgment in Geo Peter (supra) that when an application, which is preferred before 30.12.2017, is considered by the RDO, he can only do so within the confines of the KLU Order and cannot impose any condition as are permitted under the Paddy Land Act. I, therefore, find favour with the petitioners' contention that the impugned condition is untenable and unsustainable in law.

¶32

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and set aside the impugned condition in Ext.P8 order and permit the petitioners to use the said order in any manner that they may choose fit as per law, including to approach the concerned Tahsildar appropriately under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 for reassessment of tax, in which event, the said application will be considered without any further delay.

¶33

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶34

SD/-

¶35

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

¶38

WP(C).No.4400 OF 2019(Y)

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 10.05.2016.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2572/2000.
EXHIBIT P2 A	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2573/2000.
EXHIBIT P2 B	TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION DEED DATED 27.08.2013.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DATED 23.06.1997.
EXHIBIT P3 A	TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2266/1997.
EXHIBIT P3 B	TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2574/2000.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION JOINTLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS 2ND AND 3.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.12.2017 IN W.P. (C) NO.31623/2017.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2018 VIDE NO.F- 9247/17 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Dr.M.a.Muhammed Afsal, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.M.a.Muhammed Afsal, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aseena.T.M Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer(R.D.O.)

Vaniyamkulam Grama Panchayath Vs the District Collector

Princy Anto, Vs the Geologist

Naseema, Vs the Convener (Agriculture Officer)

Surathmaja Vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Soudha Beevi Vs Kizhuvilam Grama Panchayat