Allowed

K.K.Damodharan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Dec 2020WP(C)/19919/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the legality of a communication directing fees for an application filed under Section 27A of the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act. The court held the fee demand was unwarranted due to existing permissions and directed reassessment of land classification.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P10 communication was quashed. Directions were issued to reassess the land as dry land under the Kerala Land Tax Act.

K.K.Damodharan Vs State of Kerala — Customs and Excise | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.19919 OF 2020(L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.K.DAMODHARAN

¶8

AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. KESAVAN, KOTTAMPALLIL, TUKALASSERI, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW SRI.JEPH JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (NCI),KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE BUILDING, PATHANAMTHITTA 689 645

¶13

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (SUB COLLECTOR) REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 101

¶14

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 101

¶15

5 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA , PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 101

¶16

6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, THIRUVALLA., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 102

¶17

7 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, THIRUVALLA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, AGRICULTURE OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, THRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 102

¶18

BY ADV.SRI.K.J.MANURAJ,GP

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No.19919 OF 2020(L)

¶21

¶22

W.P.(C) No.19919 of 2020

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The petitioner holds an item of land measuring 15.82 ares in Thiruvalla Village. Although the land of the petitioner is shown in the revenue records as paddy land, it is stated that the same was lying as a dry land when the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (the Act) came into force. Since the land of the petitioner was not a cultivable paddy land when the above statute was introduced, the petitioner obtained permission to make use of the land for other purposes. Ext.P3 is the order passed by the third respondent in this regard on 25.10.2013. It is stated by the petitioner that when he applied for a building permit on the strength of Ext.P3 order, the Municipality took that stand that he needs to get Ext.P3 permission revalidated. It is stated that the petitioner thereupon preferred another application for permission to make use of the property for other purposes, before the third respondent. It is also stated by the petitioner that in the meanwhile, it has come to the notice of the petitioner that this land has been included in the data bank prepared under the Act. The petitioner therefore preferred an application before the local level monitoring committee for removal of the land from the

¶25

WP(C).No.19919 OF 2020(L)

¶26

¶27

data bank and in terms Ext.P9 decision, the local level monitoring committee under the Act has removed the land of the petitioner from the data bank. It is stated by the petitioner that the second application preferred by the petitioner was taken up thereafter by the third respondent and he was issued Ext.P10 communication calling upon to pay a sum of Rs.25,31,200/- towards fees for the application preferred by him. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that Ext.P10 is issued by the third respondent treating the second application preferred by him as an application under Section 27A of the Act; that in the light of Ext.P3 order issued by the third respondent as early as on 25.10.2013, it was unnecessary for the petitioner to prefer an application under Section 27A of the Act and therefore, Ext.P10 communication is illegal. The petitioner therefore, challenges Ext.P10 communication on that ground in the writ petition. The petitioner also seeks appropriate directions to the third respondent for changing the classification of the land as a dry land.

¶28

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

¶29

It is seen from Ext.P3 that the petitioner has been granted permission by the third respondent to make use of the land for other purposes. Ext.P3 is one issued as early as on 25.10.2013. Though there is no reference of the Kerala Land Utilization Order in

¶30

WP(C).No.19919 OF 2020(L)

¶31

¶32

Ext.P3, in the absence of any other power for the third respondent to pass an order in the nature of Ext.P3 on 25.10.2013, according to me, Ext.P3 order can certainly be considered as one issued under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. If that be so, it was unnecessary for the petitioner to prefer an application under Section 27A of the Act introduced in terms of Act 29 of 2018. If the petitioner need not have to obtain permission under Section 27A of the Act for the purpose of making use of the land for other purposes, Ext.P10 communication is wholly unwarranted and the same is liable to be set aside. Further, insofar as it is found that Ext.P3 is liable to be construed as an order passed under the Land Utilisation Order, in the light of the decision of this court in Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2020 (5) KLT 403, the petitioner is entitled to get the land reassessed under the Kerala Land Tax Act as a dry land and get the classification of the land changed in the revenue records as dry land.

¶33

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P10 is quashed. It is directed that if the petitioner prefers an application before the fifth respondent under the Land Tax Act for reassessment of the land on the strength of Ext.P3, the competent authority under Land Tax Act shall reassess the land of the petitioner treating the same as dry land and issue appropriate orders directing the officers

¶34

WP(C).No.19919 OF 2020(L)

¶35

¶36

concerned to change the classification of the land in the Basic Tax Register and other revenue records as dry land. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of the application.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

WP(C).No.19919 OF 2020(L)

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1	COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 06-05-2019
EXHIBIT P2	COPY OF REPORT DATED 30-07-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	COPY OF ORDER NO. A3/253/10 DATED 25-10- 2013 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4	COPY OF JUDGMENT OF DATED 18-12-2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO. 41242 OF 2018
EXHIBIT P5	COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA BANK.
EXHIBIT P6	COPY OF APPLICTION (FORM 5) DATED 16-08- 2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7	COPY OF COVERING LETTER DATED 15-10-2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8	COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9	COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT (CONVENOR OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT COMMITTEE)
EXHIBIT P10	COPY OF ORDER NO. A-3566/19 DATED 13-07- 2020 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶46

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

K.K.Damodharan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Damodharan v. State of Kerala

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

C. Prabhakaran Vs Belram Kumar Upadyaya

Bhakthavalsan, Vs State of Kerala

Thomman V.V. Vs Home Department

Joby Mathew Vs Director of Mining and Geology

Forward Seamens Union of India, Vs Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan

N.I.Muhammed Vs Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath