Allowed

T.Mohammed Musthafa, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC3 Dec 2020WP(C)/26784/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner seeking land classification correction under Kerala Land Tax Act despite prior nilam status held entitled due to early permissions under Land Utilization Order. Court directed reassessment of land as dry land and entry in Basic Tax Register.

What did the court decide?

Directed second respondent to reassess petitioner's land as dry land and update Basic Tax Register and revenue records within two months.

T.Mohammed Musthafa, 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

THURSDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.26784 OF 2020(W)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

T.MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED MUSALIYAR, RESIDING AT THARAYIL HOUSE, MAKKARAPARAMBA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 507.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.P.S.APPU

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 322.

¶11

2 THE TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 322.

¶12

3 PERINTHALMANNA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 322.

¶13

SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN STANDING COUNSEL SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C) No.26784 of 2020

¶16

¶17

W.P.(C) No.26784 of 2020

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The petitioner holds an item of land measuring 19.22 Ares in Perinthalmanna Village. The land of the petitioner is shown as 'Nilam' in the revenue records and for the purpose of making use of the land for other purposes, the petitioner obtained Exts.P1 to P3 orders of permission from the competent authority under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order on 21.07.2003, 26.04.2003 and 26.02.2004 respectively. It is stated that despite the permissions aforesaid, the local authority is not granting building permits to the petitioner for putting up the structures in the land since the classification of the land in the revenue records is Nilam. The petitioner therefore, preferred Ext.P6 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 by the petitioner that Ext.P6 application has not been considered by the second respondent taking the stand that the classification of the land

¶20

W.P.(C) No.26784 of 2020

¶21

¶22

can be corrected only in accordance with Act 29 of 2018, in terms of which the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act has been amended incorporating the provision for correction of the classification of the land. The case of the petitioner is that since the petitioner has obtained Exts.P1 to P3 orders long prior to Act 29 of 2018, he is entitled to get the classification of the land corrected on the basis of the said orders issued by the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

¶23

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

¶24

In Renji K. Paul v. Revenue Divisional

¶25

Officer, 2019 (2) KLT 262, this court held that if the holder of a land which is not included in the data bank prepared under the Act prefers an application for permission to make use of the land for other purposes under the Land Utilization Order before the coming into the force of Act 29 of 2018, in terms of which Sections 27A and 27C were introduced to the Act, the said provisions cannot be pressed into service against such a land. In the case on hand, it is seen that the petitioner obtained Exts.P1 to P3 orders under the Land Utilization Order long prior to Act 29

¶26

W.P.(C) No.26784 of 2020

¶27

¶28

of 2018. In other words, the provisions of Act 29 of 2018 cannot be pressed into service in respect of the land of the petitioner. Further, in Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2020 (5) KLT 403, this Court held that where statutory permission for 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. In the light of the decisions aforesaid, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.

¶29

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to reassess the land of the petitioner treating the same as 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 dry land. This shall be done within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also file an application in the prescribed form before the second respondent for reassessment of the land under the Kerala Land

¶30

W.P.(C) No.26784 of 2020

¶31

¶32

Tax Act, if such an application has so far not been filed by the petitioner. Other issues are left open.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶35

rkj

¶36

W.P.(C) No.26784 of 2020

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS. 4996/2003/D PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.07.2003.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.K.DIS. 2717/2003/D PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.04.2003.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L.DIS 1507/2004/M PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26.02.2004.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 15.05.2006.
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 03.09.2019.
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT 13.10.2020.
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGING EXT.P6, DATED 13.10.2020.

T.Mohammed Musthafa, v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Mohammed Musthafa, 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

Joby Mathew Vs Director of Mining and Geology

K.K.Damodharan Vs State of Kerala

Forward Seamens Union of India, Vs Dr. Sanjeev Ranjan

M.Pechimuthu Vs State Election Commissioner

Sreeram Hollow Bricks Vs Ottapalam Municipality

Eco Sand Vs the Sub Inspector of Police