Allowed

T Thomas Abraham v. Village Officer, Aluva

Kerala HC16 Dec 2020WP(C)/25101/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought change of land classification from 'Nilam' to 'purayidam'. Court directed Tahsildar to re-assess land under Kerala Land Tax Act permissible for other uses and set aside impugned rejection order for action within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Tahsildar directed to re-assess land and carry out necessary changes in Revenue Village Map within six weeks.

T Thomas Abraham Vs Village Officer, Aluva — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.25101 OF 2017(K)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

T.THOMAS ABRAHAM, S/O THOMAS, "SHARON" VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 VILLAGE OFFICER,

¶11

ALUVA WEST VILLAGE OFFICE, ALUVA ERNAKULAM- 683 101

¶12

2 THE TAHSILDAR

¶13

ALWAYE TALUK OFFICE, ALWAYE, ERNAKULAM-683 101

¶14

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,FORT KOCHI ERNAKULAM- 682 001

¶15

4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM682 030

¶16

5 ADDL.R5. THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE CHOORNIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHOORNIKKARA, ALWAYE683110, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER. (ADDITIONAL R5 WAS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 2908-2017 IN IA 13657/2017).

¶17

ADV. SRI.Y JAFFAR KHAN GP

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No.25101 OF 2017(K)

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Dated this the 16th day of December 2020

¶23

The petitioner is the owner of land in Survey Nos. 123/3, 123/2, 123/3, 123/4, 386/13 (Re-survey No.147/14, 123/5, 123/5, 123/4 of Choornikkara Village, Aluva Taluk. His application under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 was considered by the District Collector. The petitioner was granted permission to utilise the land for other purposes with certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the petitioner shall regularise the land in accordance with Section 3A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008. That was set aside by this Court by Ext.P3 judgment.

¶24

The petitioner now seeks category change of the land as a “purayidam” instead of “Nilam” in the revenue records. He approached various authorities, including the District Collector. Pursuant to the direction of this Court in Ext.P5 judgment, the District Collector considered and passed Ext.P7 order, rejecting the request.

¶25

WP(C).No.25101 OF 2017(K)

¶26

¶27

It is to be noted that the petitioner was allowed to utilise

¶28

the land for other purposes as per Ext.P2 order dated 28.07.2015. There is no difficulty in re-assessing the land under the Kerala Land Tax Act,1961, classifying it as a “purayidam”. The Tahsildar has to take necessary action. The newly incorporated Section 27A of Act 28 of 2008 which came into effect on 30.12.2017 is also not applicable in the case of the petitioner. The Division Bench of this Court in Local Level Monitoring Committee constituted under Section 5 of the KeralaConservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 in Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat and others vs. Mariumma and another [2015 (3) KHC 19] held that the Tahsildar has necessary power to re-assess the land based on varied order under Clause 6(2) of the KLUO.

¶29

In the light of the fact that the petitioner's land has been permitted to be utilised for other purposes as mentioned in Ext.P2, it is appropriate that the petitioner approaches the Tahsildar of Aluva Taluk to re-assess the land in accordance with the Kerala Land Tax Act. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. The Tahsildar shall re-assess

¶30

WP(C).No.25101 OF 2017(K)

¶31

¶32

the land in the light of Ext.P2 order, in respect of the land referred

¶33

therein and necessary changes shall be carried out in BTR, within a

¶34

period of six weeks.

¶35

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶38

SAS/16/12/2020

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

WP(C).No.25101 OF 2017(K)

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX

¶43

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBITP1	TRUE PHTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 6-12-2013
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PHTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 28-07-2015
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 28850/15 DATED 27-1-2016
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15-4-2016 FILED BEFORFE THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE PHTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 16403/2016 DATED 15-7-2016
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE PHTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19-8-2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE PHTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16-2-2017 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT

¶45

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL

¶46

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

T Thomas Abraham v. Village Officer, Aluva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Thomas Abraham v. Village Officer, Aluva

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

Sreehari Achikanath Chirakkara Vs Assistant Executive Engineer 1 1

G.K.Granites Limited Vs the Director of Mining and Geology

Sakkeer Vs District Collector

Dr. P.G Beena Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector

Aalamullathil Chandran Vs State of Kerala

Kanakamma Vs Thiruvalla Muncipality