Allowed

Umadevi.M.J. v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC3 Nov 2020WP(C)/20052/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging a revenue order regarding land re-assessment. Petitioners, who had obtained permission to convert paddy land, were directed by the Court to treat the land as dry land for tax purposes. The judgment held that the second respondent must re-assess the land and update records without imposing conflicting fees conditions.

What did the court decide?

The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the second respondent to re-assess the land as purayidam/dry land and update the Basic Tax Register within two weeks.

Umadevi.M.J. 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.20052 OF 2020(F)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 UMADEVI.M.J., AGED 80 YEARS W/O.LATE K.S.SENAN, SMRUTHI, STADIUM ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR P.O., PIN-683513, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2 SUNITHA.S., AGED 52 YEARS W/O.BALAMURALEEDHARAN, SMRUTHI, STADIUM ROAD, NORTH PARAVUR P.O., PIN-683513, PARAVUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

3 ATHULKRISHNA, AGED 28 YEARS S/O.SUDHI, KALAVAMPARA HOUSE, KIZHAKKEPRAM, N.PARAVUR P.O., PIN-683513, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

4 MRS.SHABNAM, AGED 27 YEARS W/O.ATHULKRISHNA, KALAVAMPARA HOUSE, KIZHAKKEPRAM, N.PARAVUR P.O., PIN-683513, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682001.

¶14

2 THE TAHSILDAR (LR), TALUK OFFICE, N.PARAVUR-683513.

¶15

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE OFFICE, N.PARAVUR-683513.

¶16

OTHER PRESENT:

¶17

GP. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-10-2020, THE COURT ON 03-11-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C). No. 20052 of 2020

¶20

..2..

¶21

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶22

W.P.(C) No.20052 OF 2020

¶23

Dated this the 3 rd day of November, 2020.

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Petitioners 1 and 2 owned an item of property measuring 14 cents. Out of the said 14 cents, they transferred 7 cents to petitioners 3 and 4. The property held by petitioners 1 and 2 was originally a paddy land, but converted long prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). Since the property was shown in the revenue records as paddy land, for the purpose of making use of the same for other purposes, petitioners 1 and 2 preferred an application on 11.11.2017 to the first respondent under the Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (Kerala) for permission to make use of the property for other purposes. Since the said application was not considered by the first respondent, petitioners 1 and 2 preferred W.P.(C) No.38461 of 2017 before this Court, and in terms of the directions issued in the judgment in the said writ petition, the first respondent granted the permission sought for by petitioners 1 and 2. Ext.P5 is the order issued by the first respondent in this regard. In Ext.P5, the first respondent has,

¶26

W.P.(C). No. 20052 of 2020

¶27

..3..

¶28

however, stated that the grant is subject to the condition that the petitioners shall pay the fees payable in terms of Section 27A of the Act. Petitioners 1 and 2 challenged the aforesaid condition in Ext.P5 order, in W.P.(C) No.38392 of 2018 and in terms of Ext.P6 judgment, this Court set aside the condition aforesaid. Thereupon, petitioners 1 and 2 preferred an application for re-assessment of the land before the second respondent under the Kerala Land Tax Act. Ext.P8 is the order passed by the second respondent re-assessing the land on the application preferred by petitioners 1 and 2. However, in Ext.P8 order, the second respondent has also imposed a condition that the petitioners shall pay the fees payable in terms of Section 27A of the Act. Insofar as the condition aforesaid was one set aside by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment, petitioners 1 and 2 instituted proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act against the second respondent. The second respondent then suo motu revised Ext.P8 order and issued Ext.P9 order in its place. Earlier in Ext.P8 order, the second respondent has in fact ordered correction of the classification of the land in the revenue records as dry land/purayidam and the grievance of petitioners 1 and 2 against the order was concerning the direction issued by the second respondent to effect payment of the fees under Section 27A of the Act. However, when Ext.P9 order was

¶29

W.P.(C). No. 20052 of 2020

¶30

..4..

¶31

passed, the second respondent has ordered to restore the classification of the land again as wet land and make an endorsement in the revenue records as regards Ext.P5 order issued by the first respondent. The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext.P9 order.

¶32

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

¶33

Insofar as the petitioners have been granted permission by the competent authority under the Land Utilisation Order to make use of the property for other purposes, the second respondent, the statutory authority under the Kerala Land Tax Act is under obligation to make a fresh assessment of the land so as to collect the higher tax for such converted land and issue appropriate directions to the officers concerned to make additional entries in the Basic Tax Register so as to reflect the nature of the land as garden land/purayidam in the said register [See Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2020 (5) KLT 403].

¶34

In the light of the said decision of this Court, the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to issue appropriate orders re-assessing the land of the petitioners covered by Ext.P5 order, treating the same as purayidam/dry land, if not already done, and issue directions to the officers concerned to change the classification of the

¶35

W.P.(C). No. 20052 of 2020

¶36

..5..

¶37

land in the Basic Tax Register and other revenue records as purayidam/dry land. This shall be done within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment for compliance before the second respondent.

¶38

Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶39

ds 29.10.2020

¶40

W.P.(C). No. 20052 of 2020

¶41

..6..

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1189/2014 OF PARAVUR S.R.O DATED 10.03.2014.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1381/2014 OF DO SRO, DATED 19.03.2014.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11.11.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.38461 OF 2017 DATED 30.11.2017 OF THIS COURT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.07.2018.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C)NO.38392 OF 2018 DATED 14.02.2019.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.08.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 03.10.2019 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.02.2020 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1043/2020 OF PARAVUR S.R.O 22.05.2020.

Umadevi.M.J. v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umadevi.M.J. 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

Muralidharan.C Vs Pravin Kumar Purwar

Travancore Readymix (P) Ltd.. Vs the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

Immanuel Crushers and Mines (P) Ltd. Vs the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

Martin Thomas, Vs the District Collector

Sreenivasan Nair P Vs Perumbavoor Municipality

Muhammed Rafeeq, Vs Vengola Grama Panchayath