Allowed

Philip Abraham v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC21 Aug 2023WP(C)/14103/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition against provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act. The petitioner sought an exemption from fees by applying rules in the judgment of Sajeev A.V. (Dr.) regarding contiguous lands. The Respondent 1 was directed to consider the application with a time limit.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 1st Respondent to consider the petitioner's representation (Ext.P22) and pass appropriate orders within two months.

Philip Abraham Vs Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 14103 OF 2020

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

PHILIP ABRAHAM

¶7

AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.E.M.ABRAHAM, EDASSERIATHU HOUSE,
PRAYAR, KALLISSERRY P.O., CHENGANNUR, PIN-689 124,
NOW RESIDING AT PHILS EDASSERIATHU, KEEZHERIMEL,
CHENGANNUR P.O., PIN-680 121, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.
VARUGHESE M EASO
SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FOR KOCHI, FOR KOCHI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 011.

¶11

2 THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR THALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 011.

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 041.

¶13

4 THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE EDAPPALLY SUB REGISTRAR, PONEKKARA P.O., EDAPPALLY, PIN-682 041.

¶14

5 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, VYTTILA KRISHIBHAVAN, VYTTILA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 019.

¶15

6 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

W.P.(C) No.14103 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

7THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI,
ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 035.

¶19

BY ADVS.
SRI.RANJITH – SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER TO AAG
SRI.S.SUDHEESH KUMAR, SC-KOCHI MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION
SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO
SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY, SC-KOCHI MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.(C) No.14103 OF 2020

¶22

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 21^st day of August, 2023

¶25

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules made thereunder.

¶26

The petitioner states that he owns two plots of land lying contiguously. The petitioner submitted application for changing the nature of his land in Revenue records. One of the plot is measuring more than 25 Cents whereas the other plot is less than 25 Cents. It is when a demand of fee was made from

¶27

the petitioner for changing the nature of the land in the Revenue records, that the petitioner approached this Court.

¶28

It is not disputed that the lands are lying contiguously. The argument of the petitioner is that in the judgment in Sajeev A.V. (Dr.) v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector [ 2023 (5) KHC 245 ], this Court has held that when owner of two different plots of land, lying contiguous

¶29

W.P.(C) No.14103 OF 2020

¶30

¶31

but purchased through separate documents prior to 31.12.2017 and total extent of which exceeds 25 Cents seeks exemption from payment of fees, there is no provision which says that exemption cannot be claimed by the same applicant in respect of the different lands.

¶32

The Special Government Pleader would submit that a writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment in Sajeev A.V. (Dr.) (Supra) and the said writ appeal was dismissed as per judgment reported as Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector v . (Dr.) A.V. Sajeev [2023 (4) KLT 331] .

¶33

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner’s claim now should be considered in the light of the judgment of this Court in Sajeev A.V. (Dr.) (Supra) the petitioner has submitted Ext.P22 before the Revenue Divisional Officer in this regard.

¶34

In the afore facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to consider Ext.P22 representation submitted by the petitioner in

¶35

W.P.(C) No.14103 OF 2020

¶36

¶37

the light of the judgment of this Court in Sajeev A.V. (Dr.) (Supra) and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months. It is made clear that the amounts, if any, deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the interim orders in this writ petition shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE

ded

W.P.(C) No.14103 OF 2020

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14103/2020

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

`EXHIBIT`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.2193` `DATED 21.03.2005 OF EDAPPALLY SRO.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF TITLE DEED NO.2472 DATED` `26.03.2005 OF EDAPPALLY SRO.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF` `GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 24.03.2012.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED` `10.10.2019 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER,` `EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4 A`	`TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED` `10.10.2019 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER,` `EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.RTI 99/2019` `DATED 10.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC` `INFORMATION OFFICER.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BTR` `REGISTER.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED` `12.03.2019 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN` `RESPECT OF PROPERTIES VIDE SALE DEED` `NO.2193/05.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED` `12/03/2019 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN` `RESPECT OF PROPERTIES VIDE SALE DEED` `NO. 2472/05.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P10`	`TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT. 12/12/19` `ALONG WITH APPLICATIONS IN FORM 6 AND` `CHALAN FOR RS. 1000/- IN RESPECT OF` `PROPERTIES VIDE SALE DEED NO. 2193/05.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P10 (A)`	`TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT. 12.12.19` `ALONG WITH APPLICANTS IN FORM 6 AND` `CHALAN FOR RS. 1000/- IN RESELECT OF` `PROPERTIES VIDE SALE DEED NO. 2472/05.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P11`	`TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DT.` `13/12/19 TO EXT. P10.`

¶46

W.P.(C) No.14103 OF 2020

¶47

¶48

`EXHIBIT`	`P11 (A)`	`TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DT.` `13/12/19 TO EXT. P10.(A).`
`EXHIBIT`	`P12`	`TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20/06/219` `IN WPC NO. 11252 OF 2019 OF THIS HONBLE` `COURT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P13`	`TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 12/02/2020` `IN WPC NO. 3954/2020 OF THIS HONBLE` `COURT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P14`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `24/02/2020 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P15`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. K2-634/2020` `DTD. 03.06.2020 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P15 (A)`	`TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. K2-857/2020` `DATED 06/06/2020 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P16`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONBLE` `COURT DATED 22/01/2020 IN WPC NO.` `1756 /2020.`
`Exhibit`	`P17`	`TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN NO.` `KL006505956202021M DATED 18.08.2020 SUB` `TREASURY, CHENGANNUR.`
`Exhibit`	`P17(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 2-857/20` `DATED 06.10.2020.`
`Exhibit`	`P18`	`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED` `5.4.2022 IN W.P.(C) NOS. 5449 OF 2019` `AND CONNECTED CASES.`
`Exhibit`	`P19`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER RDOCHN/634/2020-` `K2 DATED 10-04-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P20`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED` `29/11/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER` `BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS)`
`Exhibit`	`P21`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT` `NO 115/21826 DATED 1/12/2022 ISSUED` `FROM THE OFFICE OF TAHSILDAR (LAND` `RECORDS)`
`Exhibit`	`P22`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED` `17/06/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER` `BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
`Exhibit`	`P23`	`TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT` `NO 656310/2023 DATED 20/06/2023 ISSUED` `BY THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT`

¶49

W.P.(C) No.14103 OF 2020

¶50

Exhibit P24TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
29/11/2022 IN WP (C) NO 1756 OF 2020 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT

Philip Abraham v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Philip Abraham v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khadheeja Kareem Vs the District Collector Kozhikode

Ragna Ranjith Vs the District Collector Kozhikode

Radhakrishan.S.K Vs Senior Geologist

S.A. Kunju Mohammed Vs the Secretary

Beena Faizal Vs the Autorized Officer

P. Subha Vs the District Collector, Kozhikode