Allowed

Manuel T.J @ Emmanuel T.J., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Nov 2022WP(C)/18218/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to refund 2.65 lakh levied from the petitioner for changing land nature, noting a verification revealed the land was already dry land requiring no conversion.

What did the court decide?

Order directed the Additional Revenue Divisional Officer to refund the amount of ₹2,65,320/- remitted by the petitioner within a period of two months.

Manuel T.J @ Emmanuel T.J., Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 19TH KARTHIKA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 18218 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

MANUEL T.J @ EMMANUEL T.J.,
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH,
RESIDING AT THYPARAMBIL, VARAPPUZHA P.O, PARAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM - 683517.
BY ADV S.SOUMYA ISSAC

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶9

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶10

3 VILLAGE OFFICER, VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, VARAPPUZHA, ERNAKULAM-682 027.

¶11

4 ADDL.R4 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER 1ST FLOOR, KB JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI KERALA - 682001 ADDL R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15.9.2022 IN I.A-2/2022 IN WPC 18218 OF 2021

¶12

SRI. ARAVIND V.MATHEW - GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO.18218 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2022

¶18

The petitioner is owner of 7.37 Ares of property in Survey No.330/7A of Varappuzha Village in Ernakulam District. After execution of Sale Deed No.3667 of 1986 of Edappally SRO in favour of the petitioner, he filed an application before the additional 4^th respodent-Revenue Divisional Officer to change the nature of the property to dry land, as the property is reflected as paddy land in Revenue records. On considering the application submitted by the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer issued Ext.P2 letter to him, instructing to pay `2,65,320/- to Account No.0029-800-88 on the basis of Fair Value of the land, towards fee for changing the nature of the land in Revenue records.

¶19

As per Ext.P2, the petitioner remitted `2,65,320/- to the said Account. After the remittance of the aforesaid

¶20

WP(C) NO.18218 OF 2022

¶21

3

¶22

payment by Ext.P3 Chalan, the Tahsildar, Paravur issued an Official Letter to the petitioner with an intimation that on verification of the property by the Taluk Surveyor and the Head Surveyor, it is revealed that the petitioner’s property is comprised in Survey No.330/7B and it is a dry land as per the Basic Tax Register. Hence, it is not necessary to change the nature of land.

¶23

In the light of Ext.P4 letter issued by the Tahsildar, Paravur, the petitioner filed a representation before the District Collector, Ernakulam to get back the remitted amount of `2,65,320/- for conversion of the land. The District Collector forwarded the representation to the Sub Collector and the Sub Collector forwarded the file to the Tahsildar and to the Village Officer for report. Thereafter, the Village Officer submitted a detailed report to the Sub Collector on 18.09.2021 and to the Tahsildar on 15.01.2022, with all supporting documents.

¶24

WP(C) NO.18218 OF 2022

¶25

4

¶26

But, the amount remitted by the petitioner is not refunded by the respondents till date. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation to the 2^nd respondent-District Collector which is still pending. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶28

and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶29

Ext.P7 would show that the land stands described as ‘Purayidam’ in the Basic Tax Register. The Revenue Divisional Officer has stated that there is no requirement of change in the nature of land. However, an amount of `2,65,320/- has been levied from the petitioner for changing the nature of the land as ‘Purayidam’. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to refund of the fee illegally levied.

¶30

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the additional 4^th respondent-

¶31

WP(C) NO.18218 OF 2022

¶32

¶33

Revenue Divisional Officer to refund `2,65,320/- remitted by

¶34

the petitioner as per Ext.P3, within a period of two months.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C) NO.18218 OF 2022

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18218/2022

¶42

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶43

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED IN
FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER. DT..
8.10.1986
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE
RDO DATED ON 30.11.2020.
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE CHELLAN DATED ON
04.12.2020
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED ON
06.07.2021 ISSUED BY THE TAHASILDAR
PARAVOOR

¶44

Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE BTR ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER, VARAPPUZHA.
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, VARAPPUZHA TO SUB COLLECTOR
ERNAKULAM DATED 18.09.2021
Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE
OFFICER TO TAHASILDAR PARAVOOR ON
15.01.2022.

Manuel T.J @ Emmanuel T.J., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manuel T.J @ Emmanuel T.J., v. State of Kerala

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

V.I. John Vs Vishnu Raj

Fathima Crushers LLP Vs the Tahsildar

Alex v Luke, Vs District Collector

Bijulal S.T. Vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation Represented by Its Secretary

Bijulal T. Vs the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Manoj Kumar Vs v R Premkumar IAS