Disposed

Raphel v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC4 Apr 2022WP(C)/7425/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Additional Tahsildar to consider the petitioners' application under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act for altering revenue records of their converted land to garden/dry land within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the additional 5th respondent to consider the application under Section 6A and alter revenue records as garden land/dry land/purayidom within two months.

Raphel Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 7425 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 RAPHEL AGED 59 YEARS SON OF CHACKO, PUTHUVA HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM P.O, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683562

¶8

2 ABDUL AZEEZ AGED 56 YEARS SON OF MUHAMMED, MAROTTIKKAL HOUSE, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, EDATHALA P.O, ALUVA TALUK ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683561 BY ADVS. K.R.PRATHISH P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN MANASI.M

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686673

¶11

2 THE TAHSILDAR KUNNATHUNADU TALUK OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683543

¶12

3 THE TALUK SURVEYOR KUNNATHUNADU TALUK OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683543

¶13

4 VILLAGE OFFICER PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683542

¶14

WP(C) NO. 7425 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

*ADDL.5 THE TAHSILDAR (LR) KUNNATHUNADU TALUK OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM

¶17

(ADDL.R5 IS SUO MOTO IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 4/4/2022)

¶18

OTHER PRESENT:

¶19

PRINCY XAVIER-SR.GP

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C) NO. 7425 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioners claim to be the owners in possession of 24.90

¶25

Ares of land in Re-Survey No. 133/15, 133/7, 133/25, 133/28, 133/27, 133/26, 133/7-2-2, 133/8 and 133/31-2 of Kizhakkambalam Village of Kunnathunadu Taluk in Ernakulam district. Ext.P3 order had been passed by the RDO under the KLU order permitting conversion of the said property. It is submitted that the land is not included in the finalized notified data bank. The petitioner has thereafter submitted Ext.P5 application before the additional 5^th respondent and seeks a consideration of the same in terms of Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act.

¶26

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 additional 5^th respondent is duty bound to consider Ext.P5 application exercising powers under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act. It is submitted that necessary additional entries will have to

¶27

WP(C) NO. 7425 OF 2022

¶28

¶29

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

¶30

and a reassessment will have to be effected in respect of the properties in question.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the entry to be made in the revenue records should not 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 petitioners, the land should be shown as 'garden land/dry land/purayidom' in the altered Basic Tax Register.

¶32

Having heard the learned Government Pleader also, I am of the opinion that the application submitted by the petitioners is liable to be considered in accordance with law, taking note of the judgments of this Court in District Collector, Ernakulam and

¶33

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].

¶34

WP(C) NO. 7425 OF 2022

¶35

¶36

In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the additional 5^th respondent to take up, consider Ext.P5 application preferred by the petitioners, 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.P3 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 garden land/dry land/purayidom. The entire proceedings shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

ska

WP(C) NO. 7425 OF 2022

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7425/2022

¶45

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 20.02.2008 BEARING NO. 1427/2008 OF PUTHENCRUZ SUB REGISTRY OFFICE Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 01.09.2021 OF THE PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 2021-2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RDO, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 20.07.2015 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 26.02.2022 BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT

Raphel v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raphel v. the Revenue Divisional 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

Rukhiya Ashraf, Vs Ani P.N.

Nandakumar v. @ Kumar, Vs the State of Kerala

Jacob Sebastian Vs the District Collector

Sajeeve Purushothaman, Vs the Maradu Municipality

Mohammed Abdul Khader , Vs Cherpulassery Municipality

C. Rajesh Vs State of Kerala Represented by Its Secretary Localself Government