Disposed

Joshy a. Chembarathy v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC17 Nov 2020WP(C)/16878/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to exclude land from the Data Bank and avoid fees under Section 27A of Kerala Wet Land Act, claiming prior permission under KLU Order. Court directed RDO to verify claim within three months as the exclusion made other applications redundant. Petition disposed with directions.

What did the court decide?

Revoked the impugned implications of the exclusion and ordered RDO to verify the petitioner's claim regarding KLU Order permission within three months and take a decision thereon.

Joshy a. Chembarathy Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.16878 OF 2020(H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JOSHY A. CHEMBARATHY, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.AUGUSTIN, CHEMBARATHY HOUSE, MUTHALAKKODAM, THODUPUZHA-685 605.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI SRI.ABY J AUGUSTINE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MINI CIVIL STATION, MUDAVOOR.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 669.

¶11

2 THE CONVENER, LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE (LLMC) /AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, MANJALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MANJALLOOR.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 670.

¶12

BY ADV.SRI. S GOPINATHAN, SR.GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.16878 OF 2020(H)

¶15

-2-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 17th day of November 2020

¶18

The petitioner is the owner of the land comprised in Sy.No.22/1/2/2 of Manjalloor Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk.

¶19

The petitioner approached this Court seeking exclusion of the land from the Data Bank.

¶20

The petitioner purchased the property in the year 2019. The vendor's title, Ext.P2 sale deed was executed in the year 1993. In the vendor's title deed a reference has been made as to permission granted in terms of Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLU Order) on 27.11.1992 as per proceedings K.Dis.8894/92/A3.

¶21

The learned Government Pleader has a case that the reference made by the petitioner is not a reference of order it is only a file number. The said submission is recorded.

¶22

The petitioner's present dilemma is that the original

¶23

order is not available. The petitioner attempted to obtain a copy of the order from the Office of Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). That was not available for the reason that the files are

¶24

WP(C).No.16878 OF 2020(H)

¶25

-3-

¶26

not available with RDO. The petitioner moved the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) with Ext.P6 application (form No.6). The petitioner also moved RDO with Ext.P8 application to reassess the Basic Tax Register (BTR).

¶27

In view of the fact that the land in question has to be excluded from the Data Bank, as seen from the report filed before this Court by the Convener LLMC/Agricultural Officer, those applications have become redundant.

¶28

The question is whether the form No.6 application has to be considered by RDO dispensing the rigor of payment of fixed fees under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (the Act 28 of 2008) or not. The petitioner says that he is having an advantage of KLU Order obtained in the year as referred above and therefore, the petitioner should be spared from payment under Section 27A of the Act 28 of 2008.

¶29

As of now, there are no records available before this Court to conclude the petitioner had obtained an order under KLU. It is for RDO to verify from records and find out whether

¶30

WP(C).No.16878 OF 2020(H)

¶31

-4-

¶32

the petitioner's claim that the vendor had obtained permission under KLU Order is genuine or not. The BTR cannot be reassessed unless the land is regularised in accordance with law. Therefore, RDO, Muvattupuzha is directed to take a decision on the matter within a period of three months in the light of the discussions as above. RDO also shall advert to the title deed of the year 1993 of the party referring to the alleged order passed in the proceedings under KLU.

¶33

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶34

Sd/A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

¶35

akv

¶36

WP(C).No.16878 OF 2020(H)

¶37

-5-

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.616/I/2019 DATED 23.05.2019 REGISTERED IN KALLOORKKAD SRO.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.14/1993 DATED 05.01.1993 REGISTERED IN KALLOORKKAD SRO
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13.04.2020 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE DATA BANK DETAILS VIDE FILE NO.MJR.05/2019-20 PREPARED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04.06.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FORM NO.5.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN IN FORM NO.6 OF THE CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT 2008(WET LAND ACT).
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2020 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO EXT.P6 APPLICATION
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.08.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶41

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

¶42

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Joshy a. Chembarathy v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joshy a. Chembarathy 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

Railway Mens Co-Operative Building Society Ltd., Vs District Telecom Committee

Dr. Benny Augustine Vs the State of Kerala

K.P.Peter Vs Ranny Pazhavangadi Grama Panchayat

P.R.Salim Raj Vs Chottanikkara Grama Panchayat

Jolly Pathrose.L Vs Thekerala State Election Commission

Raihanath Shajudeen Vs Secretary, Changanacherry Municipality