Disposed

Gopalakrishnan v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC16 Nov 2020WP(C)/24974/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the second respondent to reassess the petitioner's land as Purayidam/dry land and update the Basic Tax Register within two weeks, relying on a prior decision regarding statutory permission for change of user.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the second respondent to reassess the land as Purayidam/dry land and update the Basic Tax Register within two weeks.

Gopalakrishnan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.24974 OF 2020(V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GOPALAKRISHNAN AGED 75 YEARS S/O.PARAMESWARA MENON, MAHANEEYA, THAIKKOTTATHIL, EROOR DESOM, EROOR P.O., NADAMA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK,

¶8

PIN - 682 306.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH) SMT.T.MANASY

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, PIN - 682 001.

¶12

2 TAHSILDAR(LR) KANAYANNOOR, KANAYANNOOR TALUK OFFICE, KOCHI - 682 011.

¶13

3 VILLAGE OFFICER MARADU VILLAGE OFFICE, MARADU, PIN - 682 304.

¶14

SRI.K.J.MANURAJ – GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.24974 OF 2020(V)

¶17

¶18

W.P.(C) No.24974 of 2020

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The deceased wife of the petitioner namely Prabha Gopalakrishnan held an item of land measuring 4 Ares in Maradu Village. In terms of Ext.P3 order, the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order granted permission to ma ke use of the said land for other purposes. On 08.09.2020, the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 application before the second respondent for reassessing the land as a dry land under the Kerala Land Tax Act and also for making appropriate corrections in the revenue records pertaining to the classification of the land. It is alleged that Ext.P4 application is not being attended to by the second respondent. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

¶21

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

¶22

3. In Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶23

2020 (5) KLT 403, this Court held that where statutory permission for

¶24

WP(C).No.24974 OF 2020(V)

¶25

¶26

change of user of land has been obtained for conversion of a paddy land to a garden land in terms of the provisions contained in Kerala Land Utilisation Order, then it is the obligation of the competent authority under the Land Tax Act to make a fresh assessment of the land so as to collect the higher land tax for such converted land and to 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.

¶27

In the light of the decision of this court aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to reassess the land covered by Ext.P3 order, if it has become final, treating the same as Purayidam/dry land and issue appropriate orders directing the officers concerned to change the classification of the 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.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶30

¶31

WP(C).No.24974 OF 2020(V)

¶32

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.4174/1995 OF MARADU SUB REGISTRY.
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 7/9/2020.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER DATED 29/4/1996 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 8/9/2020 WITH FORM A UNDER SECTION 6A OF THE LAND TAX ACT, SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 9/9/2020 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.20962/2020 DATED 7/10/2020.
RESPONDENTS'	EXHIBITS: NIL

Gopalakrishnan v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopalakrishnan 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

Abraham Vs Station Election Commission

Toby Devassy Vs State Election Commission

Johny Mathew Vs State Election Commission

Joseph Antony Vs Changanassery Municipality

Sureshbabu.v.P. Vs Irinjalakkuda Municipality

Faizal K. H. Vs the Corporation of Cochin