Partly allowed

Joseph Mathew, v. the Revenue Division Officer

Kerala HC3 Feb 2021WP(C)/14098/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged an order denying permission under Section 27A of the Conservation Act for land acquired by GCDA under Town Planning Act. High Court, relying on precedent that Town Planning Act lands are exempt, granted liberty to approach Tahasildar for re-assessment as dry land.

What did the court decide?

liberty granted to petitioner to approach third respondent for re-assessment of land as dry land with directions to add entry in Basic Tax Register within two months.

Joseph Mathew, Vs the Revenue Division Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.14098 OF 2020(J)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JOSEPH MATHEW, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, CHETHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.63/2099, JOSE FARMS, NEAR KADAVANTHARA MARKET, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-682 020.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.P.VISWANATHAN (SR.) SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISION OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, PIN CODE 682 001.

¶11

*2 ADDL.R2.THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, PIN CODE-682020.

¶12

*3 ADDL.R3. TAHASILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN CODE-682011.

¶13

¶14

W.P.(C) No.14098 of 2020

¶15

**4 ADDL.R4. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM PIN CODE-682020. (ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS NOS.2, 3 AND 4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA 1/2020 DATED 3-22021).

¶16

R4 BY ADV. SMT.MINI.V.A. SMT.G RANJITA GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

W.P.(C) No.14098 of 2020

¶20

W.P.(C) No.14098 of 2020

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Petitioner obtained 38 cents of land situated in Elamkulam Village as per Exts.P1 to P3 assignment deeds from the Greater Cochin Development Authority (the GCDA). The land covered by the assignment deeds in favour of the petitioner is one acquired by the GCDA under a Town Planning Scheme sanctioned by the Government under the Town Planning Act 1108 for allotment for residential purpose. The land obtained by the petitioner, however, is shown in the revenue records as 'Nilam'. It is alleged by the petitioner that on account of the said reason, the petitioner is unable to obtain a building permit in respect of the land. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an application for permission to make use of the land for other purposes invoking Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land

¶23

¶24

W.P.(C) No.14098 of 2020

¶25

Utilization Order. The said application was dismissed by the respondent as per Ext.P12 order holding that the petitioner has to obtain permission for the said purpose under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (t he Act). Ext.P12 order is under challenge in the writ petition.

¶26

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

¶27

Exts.P1 to P3 assignment deeds indicate that the land covered by the assignment deeds in favour of the petitioner is a land acquired by the GCDA under a Town Planning Scheme sanctioned by the Government under the Town Planning Act 1108 for allotment for residential purpose. In State of Kerala and others v. Binu Mathew Chacko and others, 2020 (6) KHC 717, a Division Bench of this court h eld that the provisions of the Act will not have any application to the lands acquired, developed and allotted for residential or other purposes by Governmental agencies under development schemes framed under the Town Planning legislation. It is also held by the Division Bench in the said case that permission is

¶28

W.P.(C) No.14098 of 2020

¶29

¶30

deemed to have been granted for such lands under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. In Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2020 (5) KLT 403, this Court held that where statutory permission for change of user of land is granted for conversion of a paddy land to a garden land, then it is the obligation of the competent authority under the Kerala 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.

¶31

In the light of the said judgments of this Court, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the third respondent for re-assessment of the land covered by Exts.P1 to P3 assignment deeds as dry land and directing further that in the event of the petitioner approaching the third respondent for the said purpose , the third respondent shall re-assess the land of the petitioner as dry land and make appropriate additional entry in the Basic Tax Register relating to the land indicating the present

¶32

¶33

W.P.(C) No.14098 of 2020

¶34

classification of the land, within two months from the date of receipt

¶35

of the application for re-assessment.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

¶38

YKB

¶39

W.P.(C) No.14098 of 2020

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX

¶42

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1179 OF 1983 OF SRO, ERNAKULAM.

¶44

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1180/1983 OF SRO, ERNAKULAM.

¶45

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1221/2004 OF SRO, ERNAKULAM.

¶46

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF GO(MS) 44/74/LA AND SWD DATED 26/2/1974 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE NO.15 DATED 9/4/1974.

¶47

EXHIBIT P4(A) THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REVISED MAP SHOWING THE PLOTS ALLOCATION IN SURVEY NOS.375 AND 376 OF ELAMKULAM VILLAGE.

¶48

EXHIBIT P4(B) THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO.9610/PL3/2018/GCDA DATED 5/12/2018.

¶49

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF BASIC TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 20/12/2018.

¶50

EXHIBIT P5(A) THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF BASIC TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 31/12/2018.

¶51

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BTR ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, ELAMKULAM.

¶52

¶53

W.P.(C) No.14098 of 2020

¶54

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, ELAMKULAM. EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 19/06/2018. EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P9(A) THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE DATED 27/11/2018. EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF REPORT DATED 13/11/2018 PREPARED BY THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, COCHIN CORPORATION. EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/01/2020 PASSED IN WP(C) NO.4431/2019. EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/3/20 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶55

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶56

NIL

¶57

//TRUE COPY//

¶58

PA TO JUDGE

Joseph Mathew, v. the Revenue Division Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Mathew, v. the Revenue Division 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

Beerankutty Haji P.V. Vs Tirur Municipality

Varghese T.J. Vs Changanassery Municipality

M.B.Rajagopal Vs State of Kerala

Kalayanparambu Residents Association, Vs T. Anupama

Anoop Paul, Vs State of Kerala

Jackson Raphael K. M. Vs State of Kerala