Dismissed

Roshini Varghese, v. the District Collector

Kerala HC23 Mar 2022WP(C)/6858/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Court directed the respondent Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's application under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act to alter revenue records for converted land, ensuring proceedings are completed within one month.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent was directed to consider the petitioner's application and make necessary alterations in the revenue records within one month.

Roshini Varghese, Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO.6858 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER :-

¶7

ROSHINI VARGHESE, KADICHEENI, MALA, VADAMA, THRISSUR-680 732.

¶8

BY ADV SUNIL JACOB JOSE

¶9

RESPONDENTS :-

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003.

¶11

2 THE TAHSILDAR (LR), TALUK OFFICE, CHALAKUDY-680 307.

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAMA, THRISSUR-680 732.

¶13

BY SMT.VINITHA B, SR.GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO.6858 OF 2022

¶16

-: 2 :-

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2022

¶19

The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of 16.19 Ares of land in Survey No.139/2 of Vadama Village in Chalakudi Taluk of Thrissur District. The predecessor of the petitioner has obtained Ext.P1 order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The petitioner has, thereafter, submitted Ext.P2 application before the 2^nd respondent and seeks a consideration of the same in terms of Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue stands squarely covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others [2020 (4) KLT 612]. It is submitted that the 2^nd respondent is duty bound to consider Ext.P2 application exercising powers under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act. It is submitted that necessary additional entries will have to be made in the Basic Tax Register maintained in terms of Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules to show the change in nature of the land and a reassessment will have to be effected in respect of the properties in question.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the entry to be made in the revenue records should not

¶22

WP(C) NO.6858 OF 2022

¶23

-: 3 :-

¶24

be as 'converted land', since there is no such classification of land as provided in the relevant enactments and that in view of the conversion duly carried out by the petitioner, the land should be shown as 'garden land/dry land/purayidom' in the altered Basic Tax Register.

¶25

Having heard the learned Government Pleader also, I am of the opinion that the application submitted by the petitioner is liable to be considered in accordance with law, taking note of the judgments of this Court in District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others [2020 (4) KLT 612] and in Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki and others [2020 (5) KLT 403].

¶26

In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to take up, consider Ext.P2 application preferred by the petitioner, in the light of the judgments referred to above and pass appropriate orders, after considering all relevant aspects of the matter including the nature and identity of the property and the fact whether the conversion had been carried out pursuant to Ext.P1 order. If the facts stated are found to be correct and if the application is liable to be considered, then, the appropriate steps shall be taken for correction of the entry/ alteration of the revenue records by entering the property as

¶27

WP(C) NO.6858 OF 2022

¶28

-: 4 :-

¶29

garden land/dry land/purayidom. The entire proceedings shall be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶30

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

¶33

Jvt/26.3.2021

¶34

WP(C) NO.6858 OF 2022

¶35

-: 5 :-

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6858/2022

¶37

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶38

Exhibit P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. 1865/89 DATED 13/02/1989 OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR. Exhibit P2 PHOTOCOPY OF FORM A DATED 16/01/2021 ALONG WITH ITS COVERING LETTER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ITS RECEIPT NO. B4-929/2021. Exhibit P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REMINDER REPRESENTATION DATED 17/12/2021.

Roshini Varghese, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshini Varghese, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Tmt Granites Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

Salavudhin K.K. Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Prakash Kumar, Vs the State Police Chief

Ravindrakumar v Vs 1. the Palakkad Municipality

Shaju C Chacko, Vs the District Collector

Jacob Augustine Vs the Senior Geologist