Disposed

Muhammed Asharaf K.K., v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC1 Aug 2024WP(C)/37119/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the petitioner to apply under Form A before the Tahsildar within two weeks to regularize construction on land with a valid KLU order. The revenue office must provide the order copy. The Panchayat will reconsider the application within four weeks after the Tahsildar passes orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to apply under Form A before Tahsildar within two weeks; Revenue office to provide KLU order copy; Panchayat to reconsider application within four weeks of Tahsildar's order.

Muhammed Asharaf K.K., Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 37119 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MUHAMMED ASHARAF K.K., AGED 59 YEARS

¶7

S/O. ABDURAHIMAN MUSLIYAR, KALLANKADAVAN HOUSE, VILAYIL, PARAPPOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673639

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

BABU S. NAIR SMITHA BABU

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER ,

¶12

1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679322

¶13

THE VAZHAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, 2 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAZHAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673640

¶14

BY ADVS.

¶15

SAYED MANSOOR BAFAKHY THANGAL

¶16

SMT.PREETHA K.K., SR.GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

-2-

¶19

WP(C)No.37119 of 2022

¶20

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

¶21

WP(C)No.37119 of 2022

¶22

Dated this the 1^st day of August, 2024

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

he application preferred by the petitioner for regularisation of the construction effected by him was rejected by the Panchayat concerned by order dated 2.9.2022 on the ground that the petitioner's property is shown as 'nilam' in the revenue records. It is the petitioner's case that he had obtained orders under clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 dated 8.8.2002. However, the petitioner did not have a copy of the order and approached the office of the first respondent to get the same. He did not obtain the same even from the office of the first respondent to produce it before the Panchayat authorities.

¶25

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent wherein it is stated as follows:-.

¶26

-3-

¶27

WP(C)No.37119 of 2022

¶28

“2. It is submitted that, a report was obtained from Village Officer, Vazhakkad to ascertain the correlation between the land specified in the KLU Order and the land covered in the above writ petition. Additionally, an attested copy of the Basic Tax Register (BTR) relevant to Sy.No.156/10 of Vazhakkad village was procured for examination. Upon a thorough examination of both the report from the Village Officer and the attested BTR copy it has come to our attention that Sy.No.156/10 contains a total land area of 59.9 cents. This confirms that the land for which the KLU Order bearing number KDIs/3766/2002/M was issued by this office corresponds precisely with the land that is the subject of the above writ petition.

¶29

It is submitted that, hence, it is now conclusively established that the property of the petitioner, as encompassed in the writ petition, has indeed been accorded a KLU order document under Order No.KDIs/3766/2002/M. However, an inadvertent error occurred in the registration deed, wherein the order No.K Dis/2766/2002/M was incorrectly mentioned.”

¶30

A reading of the above shows that the petitioner was indeed granted an order under the provisions of the KLU Order pertaining to 59.9 Cents in Survey No.156/10. In view of the above, it will be open to the petitioner to make an application under Form A under Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 r/w 1972 Rules. If the petitioner

¶31

-4-

¶32

¶33

makes an application before the Tahsildar (LR) concerned within two weeks from today, the Tahsildar concerned will pass appropriate orders on the same within a month thereafter, from the date of receipt of the application, after ensuring the extent and identity of the property in question from the office of the first respondent and based on the statements in the counter affidavit noted above. The petitioner, based on the counter now filed, can also request the first respondent to give him an authorised copy of the KLU Order which he may produce along with the Form A application. Based on the orders to be passed on Form A as aforesaid, the Panchayat will reconsider the application of the petitioner, if the application is otherwise in order, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order to be passed by the Tahsildar (LR) concerned.

¶34

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶35

Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

JUDGE

dlk/2.8.2024

-5-

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37119/2022

¶41

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶42

A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED OF EXHIBIT P1 THE PROPERTIES DATED, 6-1-2010 AS NO.30/2010 OF THE S.R.O., VAZHAKKAD

¶43

A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE EXHIBIT P2 2ND RESPONDENT DATED, 2-9-2022

¶44

TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, EXHIBIT P3 VAZHAKKAD DATED, 20-10-2021 ALONG WITH THE LAND IDENTIFICATION DETAILS

Muhammed Asharaf K.K., v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Asharaf K.K., 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kizhakkethil Itheerumma Vs the Director

Nalini M Vs C.Subramanian

Velayudhan, Vs Edathala Gramapanchayath

Rathnamma Ravi, Vs State of Kerala

K. M. Thomas, Vs the Secretary

Sreekumar a. K., Vs State of Kerala