Partly allowed

Sealand Builders Pvt. Ltd., v. the District Collector

Kerala HC16 Nov 2022WP(C)/15956/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application to remove land from the Data Bank within three months. Other pleas regarding land designation and usage were left open.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 2nd respondent (Revenue Divisional Officer) to consider Ext.P7 application to remove land from Data Bank within three months.

Sealand Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/ 25TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 15956 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SEALAND BUILDERS PVT. LTD., REP BY ITS DIRECTOR SHAJI K MATHEW, S/O.K.C. MATHEW, 1ST FLOOR, ANJANA COMPLEX, KUNDANNUR VYTTILA PIN-682 304.

¶8

BY ADV. ANU S NAIR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM KAKKANAD-682 030.

¶11

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORTKOCHI KOCHI-682 001.

¶12

3 TAHASILDAR KANAYANNUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKUAM-681 011.

¶13

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MARADU, NETTOOR, MARADU-682 040.

¶14

BY ADV.

¶15

SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C) NO.15956 of 2020

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2022

¶20

The petitioner-Company, which owns 11.2 Ares of land in ReSurvey No.216/3 and 10.03 Ares of land in Re-Survey No.216/4-2 in Block No.14 of Maradu Village, Kanayannur Taluk in Ernakulam District, seeks to direct the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on application dated 03.02.2016 evidenced by Ext.P4 acknowledgment and to direct the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P7 application dated 09.07.2020 to remove the land from Data Bank. The petitioner has also sought certain other incidental reliefs.

¶21

The petitioner states that their land is erroneously described as 'paddy land' in Revenue records. The land has been included in the Data Bank. But in the Data Bank, the land is described as 'converted land'. The petitioner therefore submitted

¶22

WP(C) NO.15956 of 2020

¶23

¶24

an application seeking permission to use the land for nonagricultural purposes, invoking the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. Ext.P4 is the receipt in evidence of application made under the KLU Order, 1967.

¶25

The petitioner states that the land was erroneously included in the Data Bank. Therefore, the petitioner submitted an application in Form-5 invoking Rule 4(d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The respondents have not considered Ext.P7 application or the application acknowledged as per Ext.P4. The petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation before the Tahsildar seeking to reassess the land tax of the petitioner, since the petitioner's land is in the nature of purayidam. No steps have been taken by the respondents in the matter.

¶26

Senior Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Senior Government Pleader

¶27

WP(C) NO.15956 of 2020

¶28

¶29

submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner appears to be one under Section 3A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Section 3A has been deleted from the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

¶30

The petitioner has submitted Form-5 application as is evidenced by Ext.P7. If Ext.P7 application is received, the same can be considered in accordance with law. The question of reassessment of land and changing the nature of the land would arise only after the land is removed from Data Bank, contended the Senior Government Pleader.

¶31

I have heard the learned counsel of the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶32

According to the petitioner, the petitioner has submitted an application invoking the KLU Order seeking permission to use

¶33

the land for non-agricultural purposes. Ext.P4 is the receipt of

¶34

WP(C) NO.15956 of 2020

¶35

¶36

submission of application issued to the petitioner.

¶37

The fact reveals that the land of the petitioner is included in Data Bank. Therefore, it will be only just and proper that the application submitted by the petitioner for removal of land from the Data Bank be considered first.

¶38

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to consider Ext.P7 application submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law within a period of three months. The claim of the petitioner for changing the nature of the land in Revenue records and for permission to use the land for non-agricultural purposes, is left open.

¶39

Sd/N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶40

N. NAGARESH

¶41

sss

¶42

WP(C) NO.15956 of 2020

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15956/2020

¶45

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA BANK. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 5/2/2016 FOR CLAUSE 6(2) APPLICATION UNDER KLU ORDER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALLAN RECEIPT DATED 5/2/16 PAYMENT OF FEE FOR KLU APPLICATION. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 26/9/2017 FOR THE APPLICATION TO REMOVE THE LAND FROM DATA BANK. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION DATED 9/7/20 TO REMOVE FROM DATA BANK. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER SEC 6A OF LAND TAX ACT 1961 FOR RE ASSESSMENT OF LAND TAX.

Sealand Builders Pvt. Ltd., v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sealand Builders Pvt. Ltd., v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Romeena Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Rasheeda Ali Vs Pathanapuram Grama Panchayath

V.Rajasekhar Vs the Palakkad Municipality

P.Bhuvanendra Rao Vs M/S. Coral Shelters & Builders Private Limited

Abdurahiman A.K. Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur

Anupama Ramachandran Vs the Muncipal Council Palakkad Muncipality