Dismissed

Manniyil Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Feb 2023WP(C)/9131/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Additional Tahsildar's order rejecting a request to change land status from 'nilam' to 'purayidam' in the Basic Tax Register. The court held that Rule 4 of the Rules under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 mandates prior adjudication by competent authority and inspection before changing BTR entries.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no ground for interference in the impugned order being found. Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Manniyil Abdul Rasheed Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 28TH MAGHA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 9131 OF 2013

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MANNIYIL ABDUL RASHEED S/O.AALI HAJI,MANNIYIL HOUSE, P.O ANAKKAYAM 676 509,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADV SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR MALAPPURAM 676 505

¶12

3 THE TAHSILDAR ERNAD TALUK,MANJERI 676 123

¶13

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, NARUKARA VILLAGE 676 123 SRI.JUSTIN JACOB, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)No.9131/2013

JUDGMENT

Ext.P4 order of the Additional Tahsildar, Eranad, Manjeri, rejecting the complaint dated 23.11.2012 submitted by the petitioner for changing the status of the property from ‘nilam’ to ‘purayidam’ by causing change in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

¶19

The petitioner is alleged to be the owner of land bearing No.0.1923 Hector (47.50 cents of land) in S.No.5/1 of Narukara Village, Ernad Taluk, Malappuram District, vide registered document bearing No.6076 of 2010 described as nilam. The contention of the petitioner is that the land aforementioned is actually a dry land and therefore, submitted a request before the Tahsildar for effecting change in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) as non-nilam (purayidam), but, the same has been rejected.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order is not sustainable in the eyes of law for, it is stated in the order that the Additional Tahsildar is only empowered to rectify corrections in the village records and not change the entry as ‘purayidam’ instead of ‘nilam’ in respect of the petitioner's property. No efforts have been made by the authorities to enforce the paddy cultivation or any other crops as defined

¶21

WP(C)No.9131/2013

¶22

¶23

under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 and the Rules framed thereunder. The Additional Tahsildar can only correct the mistakes occurred during the resurvey. The petitioner reclaimed the plot in question well before the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 and therefore, the respondents are legally bound to make appropriate corrections reflecting the real status of the plot as purayidam in the BTR.

¶24

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader, Mr.Justin Jacob, opposed the aforementioned prayer on the ground that even if the property of the petitioner was reclaimed prior to the coming into force of the Act, there is a proper procedure prescribed under the Act for making an application before the competent authority. In the draft data Bank, the property has been shown as wet land. The process of effecting the change in BTR would come later only when the land shown in the record is reclaimed to be purayidam from nilam. There is no such order passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

¶25

I have heard the counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

¶26

¶27

¶28

Rule 4 of the Rules framed under the 2008 Act provides a proper procedure for conversion of the land to purayidam instead of nilam already in the BTR after holding a detailed enquiry as provided thereunder.

¶29

The contents of the application dated 23.11.2012 reveals that the prayer was only confined to effect BTR and not with regard to the nature of the land. Until and unless the entry in the Draft Data Bank is not changed, there can be no adjudication by any authority much less the Additional Tahsildar for effecting the same.

¶30

In my view, the petitioner has unilaterally formed an opinion that the land in possession and ownership would not come under the provisions of the Act on the basis of reclamation prior to the coming into force of the Act. Even if it is so, there has to be adjudication by the competent authority based upon the inspection and material on record. In the absence of the same, I am of the view that the order Ext.P4 rejecting the application is perfectly legal and justified and do not suffer from any illegality.

¶31

No ground for interference is made is out. Writ Petition stands Dismissed.

¶32

Sd/-AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

csl

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9131/2013

¶37

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶38

EXT.P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO 6076/2010 OF MANJERI SUB REGISTRY EXT.P2 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 2311-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO H2 45545/2012/K.DIS DTD 19-12-2012 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶39

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

¶40

ANNEXURE R3(a) TRUE COPY OF HTE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK.

Manniyil Abdul Rasheed v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manniyil Abdul Rasheed 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhusoodanan. M Vs Sri. A.P.M. Mohammed Hanish, IAS

LIC Housing Finance Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Official Liquidator Vs Sc

Preedha Suasan Santhosh Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Ambili P. Vs State of Kerala

Getrude.K.G. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board