Allowed

Michael Meenattoor v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Nov 2022WP(C)/21601/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought declaration and directed issuance of Record of Rights treating purchased land as 'Purayidam' after Survey Adalat changed its classification. Court directed 4th respondent to finalize application and issue RoR.

What did the court decide?

The Tahsildar (Land Records) directed to process the application and issue Record of Rights treating the land as 'Purayidam' within one month.

Michael Meenattoor Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 21601 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

MICHAEL MEENATTOOR
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O LATE MANI MEENATTOOR, RESIDING AT VILLA NO.43,
TRINITY GARDENS, ALUVA-KALADY ROAD,
DESOM P.O., ERNAKULAM, KERALA
PIN – 683102

¶8

BY ADVS.
K.C.VINCENT
T.N.ARJUN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM

¶12

PIN - 682030

¶13

3THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
FORT KOCHI,
OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM
PIN - 682001
4THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS)
TALUK OFFICE,
KANNAYANNOOR, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM
PIN - 682011

¶14

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, VAZHAKKALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682021

¶15

6 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM PIN - 682030

¶16

SMIT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO.21601 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 22^nd day of November, 2022

¶22

The petitioner, who has purchased 34 Ares of property comprised in Re-Survey No.126/2, 03.15 Ares in Re-Survey No.126/5 and 12.05 Ares in Re-Survey No.126/6 in Block No.9 of Vazhakkala Village of Kanayannur Taluk, has approached this Court seeking to declare that the land of the petitioner shall be treated as ‘Purayidam’ for all purposes in view of the physical nature and categorization of the same in Revenue records as ‘Purayidam’ for years.

¶23

The petitioner states that he purchased the land on 01.01.2004 as per a Sale Deed. The vendor of the petitioner was Sri. Joseph Jerry. The properties were categorized as ‘Purayidam’ in the Basic Tax Register (BTR). The Thandaper account also described the property as ‘Purayidam’. The petitioner purchased the property after ascertaining the nature of the land.

¶24

WP(C) NO.21601 OF 2022

¶25

¶26

The petitioner mutated the property in his name.

¶27

Even then, in Ext.P4 Thandaper account also, the property was described as ‘Purayidam’. In ExtP1 Tax Receipt issued to the petitioner also, the land is shown as ‘Purayidam’. Ext.P6 is the Possession Certificate obtained by the petitioner in the year 2021. In Ext.P6 also, the land is described as ‘Purayidam’.

¶28

The petitioner wanted to sell the property and submitted an application for Record of Rights (RoR) on 09.02.2022. To the surprise and predicament of the petitioner, on receipt of Ext.P8, the respondents informed the petitioner that there is some problem with the records and a clarification is sought for from the Tahsildar. On further enquiry, the petitioner learnt that the BTR verified by the respondents and copies issued to them were in respect of Adalat BTR maintained in the Village Office and that in the Original BTR, the land is described as Nilam/Paddy Land.

¶29

WP(C) NO.21601 OF 2022

¶30

¶31

The petitioner would state that the public as well as officials of the Revenue Department were proceeding on a premise that the land of the petitioner is ‘Purayidam’ for all purposes. The Google image of 2003 and afterwards also shows existence of grown up trees spread over the land. It is highly arbitrary to describe the land as ‘Purayidam’. The petitioner therefore filed the writ petition seeking to direct the 4^th respondent to finalise Ext.P8 application for RoR submitted by the petitioner expeditiously.

¶32

Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader denied all the material allegations made by the petitioner. The land of the petitioner is described as ‘paddy land’ in the original BTR, contended the Government Pleader. Therefore, the land cannot be treated as Purayidam and no RoR can be issued to that effect.

¶33

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶34

and the learned Government Pleader representing the

¶35

WP(C) NO.21601 OF 2022

¶36

¶37

respondents.

¶38

In Ext.P1 Tax Receipt issued to the petitioner, the property is described as ‘Purayidam’. In Ext.P2 BTR also, the land of the petitioner is described as ‘Purayidam’. Ext.P6 is the Possession Certificate issued to the petitioner. Ext.P6 also classifies the petitioner’s land as ‘dry land’. In the portal maintained by the Department of Revenue, the land is described as ‘Purayidam’, as can be seen from Ext.P7.

¶39

The Government Pleader submits that as per the old BTR, the properties were belonging to Thandaper Holders of 1891, 1512 and 2981 Thandaper numbers and the classification of the land was ‘Nilam’. Later, all these properties came under single ownership of Thandaper No.5197. In Adalath BTR and in Thandaper, the classification of land was changed to ‘Purayidam’.

¶40

The Government Pleader further pointed out that since the classification of the land is shown in old BTR and Adalath BTR differently, the Village Officer, Vazhakkala was

¶41

WP(C) NO.21601 OF 2022

¶42

¶43

directed to submit a report in this regard. The Government Pleader submitted that the application submitted by Sri. Joseph Jerry would indicate that the Survey Adalath has decided to change the nature of the land in BTR as ‘Purayidam’.

¶44

As a competent Survey Adalat has decided to change the nature of petitioner’s land as Purayidam, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is eligible to get his RoR treating his land as ‘Purayidam’.

¶45

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4^th respondent-Tahsildar (LR) to process the application for RoR submitted by the petitioner and issue RoR to the petitioner, within a period of one month, treating the classification of the land as ‘Purayidam’.

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C) NO.21601 OF 2022

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21601/2022

¶52

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶53

Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
02.04.2022 RELATING TO THE SUBJECT
PROPERTIES
Exhibit P2A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
BTR
Exhibit P3A TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT
RELATING TO 5197
Exhibit P4A TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT
RELATING TO 7612
Exhibit P5A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
01.10.2013
Exhibit P6A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION
CERTIFICATE DATED 02.03.2021
Exhibit P7TRUE COPIES OF THE PRINTOUTS FROM THE
WEB PORTAL TAKEN ON 28.06.2022
Exhibit P8A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NO.
KL07021601919/2022 AND DATED 09.02.2022
FOR REMITTANCE OF FEE
Exhibit P9A COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.02.2022
SENT BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO
TAHSILDAR (LR)
Exhibit P10A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE
BTR MAINTAINED AT THE VILLAGE AND
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON 25.04.2022
Exhibit P11TRUE PRINTOUTS OF THE GOOGLE IMAGES OF
2003, 2005 AND 2017
RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS : NIL

Michael Meenattoor v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Michael Meenattoor v. the 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

Sebin K. S. Vs the State of Kerala

Najeena Asharaf Vs Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Limited

The Principal Secretary to Government Vs the Chairman and Managing Trustee

Jalal Das Vs the District Collector

R Sumathi Vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Thamban K.P Vs the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority