High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-10-13Petition allowed; land described in Sy Nos. 104...

A.M. Sadick v. Village Officer, Ernakulam; Kanayannur Tahsildar; State of Kerala; Greater Cochin Development Authority

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.5305 OF 2020(K)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A. Muhammed Mustaque
Judgment Date: 2020-10-13
Court Decision / Holding: The court held that the land in Sy. Nos. 104/1 and 104/2 (ext. 32.5 cents) belonged to the petitioner and should be treated as purayidam in the Basic Tax Register and all related revenue records. The legal heirs of A.B. Mohammed are to be given revenue certificates, acknowledging the land as purayidam.
Final Disposition: Petition allowed; land described in Sy Nos. 104/1 and 104/2, extent 32.5 cents, to be treated as purayidam in the Basic Tax Register and revenue records; legal heirs to receive revenue certificates; GCDA’s earlier position acknowledged for purposes of use under town planning scheme; orders to be implemented accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

A.M. Sadick

Respondents

1 Village Officer, Ernakulam, Ernakulam Village Office, Kochi-682 011
2 Kanayannur Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk Office, Kochi-682 011
3 State of Kerala, represented by Secretary, Department of Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001
4 Greater Cochin Development Authority, Sahodaran, Ayappan Road, Kochi-682 020, represented by its Secretary

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T. Jeejan

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Sm. Sabena P. Ismail
• Mr. Dhanil GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges the classification of a 32.5-cent land in Sy Nos. 104/1 and 104/2, Ernakulam Village, originally acquired by GCDA for a Town Planning Scheme and later described in some records as nilam, with other records showing purayidam. The 1977 land acquisition proceedings culminated in an award (1981) that treated the land as dry land. The land later passed to the legal heirs of late A.B. Mohammed via an exchange in 2001. The dispute centers on whether the land should continue to be treated as nilam or should be reclassified as purayidam in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) and other revenue records, considering its location in the city center and its proposed use under the Kaloor Sub Center Scheme. The court discusses the power of Revenue authorities to reassess land classifications under the Kerala Land Tax Act and whether corrections can be made on the basis of old entries in settlement registers, especially where there is longstanding record of the land’s classification and use. It cites Indria P.S. and Others v. Sub Collector, Fort Kochi and Another to illustrate that corrections may be justified if supported by factual records and not merely by antiquated entries. The judge ultimately directs that the land be treated as purayidam and issued revenue certificates to the legal heirs.

Provisions of Law Cited

Act 28 of 2008Section 6A of the Land Tax Act (Kerala)Kerala Land Tax Act (as context)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Ultra vires
Arbitrary action by governmental authorities (principle)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicant contends that the land originally belonged to the GCDA and was acquired for a Town Planning Scheme; the 1981 award treated the land as dry land. A 2001 mutation and sale/exchange documents reflect the land as purayidam in Thandapper and other records, and the land has been identified for the Kaloor Sub Center Scheme. The applicant argues that the Revenue Authority has power to correct entries under Act 28 of 2008 based on factual corrections, and that there is no requirement to seek permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order for converting land use when the property has already been changed in practice and records reflect this; revenue certificates should be issued to the legal heirs accordingly.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the land’s description in settlement registers showed nilam, with Basic Tax Records (BTR) and other documents reflecting garden land or purayidam only after due survey. They argue corrections must be rooted in factual records and long-continued entries; changes should not be driven solely by old settlement entries. They rely on statutory provisions governing tax and land classification and emphasize that corrections under the applicable statutes should be exercised with due process and factual basis.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Indria P.S. and Others v. Sub Collector, Fort Kochi and Another	2020 (4) KHC 33	Positive	Cited to support the principle that corrections to land records under the relevant statutes can be justified by factual records, not solely by old settlement entries, particularly when long-standing practice and records reflect a different classification.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against A.M. Sadick v. Village Officer, Ernakulam; Kanayannur Tahsildar; State of Kerala; Greater Cochin Development Authority and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** ## **TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 21ST ASWINA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.5305 OF 2020(K)** ## **PETITIONER:** **A.M.SADICK, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.A.B.MOHAMMED, ALUNKALPARAMBIL HOUSE, PULLEPADY, KOCHI-682 018.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.T.JEEJAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE VILLAGE OFFICER ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KOCHI-682 011.** - **2 KANAYANNUR THAHASILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, KOCHI-682 011.** - **3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **4 GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SAHODARAN, AYYAPPAN ROAD, KOCHI-682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **R4 BY ADV. SMT.SABEENA P.ISMAIL** **MR DHANIL GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No.5305 OF 2020(K)** ..2.. ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 13th day of October 2020** The dispute in this case is as to the description of the land having an extent of 32.5 cents comprised in Sy. No.104/1 and 104/2 of Ernakulam Village. 2. This land was originally belonged to Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA). It was acquired for commercial use. In a Land Acquisition Proceedings, an award was passed treating the land as dry land. The land situated in the heart of Cochin city. The acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1977 and the award was passed in the year 1981. 3. This land came into the hands of the legal heirs of late A.B. Mohammed through an exchange deed executed in the year 2001. The exchange deed was executed consequent upon settling a dispute in regard to the acquisition of the land from A.B. Mohammed. The settlement was arrived before this court in O.P ## **WP(C).No.5305 OF 2020(K)** ..3.. No. 1626 of 1997. 4. Present dispute arisen, as the Revenue Authority described the land as 'nilam' and refused to receive basic tax as for dry land. 5. As seen from the settlement register this land was classified as 'nilam'. However, the relevant page related to basic tax register is missing. It is an admitted case that in Thandaper Register the land was classified as 'purayidam'. This was done in the year 2001, while effecting mutation. It is seen from the award passed by the land acquisition officer, the land was treated as 'dry land' much before the Act 28 of 2008 came into force. 6. It is to be noted that this land has been identified for the purpose of Kaloor Sub Center Scheme, for commercial use. This was coming under the Town Planning Scheme. The land was acquired by GCDA for Town Planning Scheme. This would amounts to a declaration that land was required to utilize for other purposes other than for cultivation. The GCDA is a public ## **WP(C).No.5305 OF 2020(K)** **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** authority, when law allows GCDA to utilize the land for other purposes that implidely means that GCDA was allowed to convert or utilize the land for other purposes. Therefore, there was no requirement for GCDA to obtain permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. 7. The Land has been treated as 'dry land' and was part of Town planning Scheme. It is obvious, the land was converted and re-assessed as 'dry land' from 2001 on wards by taking note of the nature of land. 8. If a 'nilam' was reassessed as purayidam due to nature and lie of the property, that cannot be reviewed pointing out to the entry in the original Settlement Register, the land has been treated as 'nilam' in the light of decision in **Indria P.S. and Others v. Sub Collector, Fort Kochi and Another [2020 (4) KHC 33]** . If there was any deliberate act of effecting changes to get over hurdles placed or restrictions under the Act 28 of 2008, certainly, the Revenue Authority would be justified in correcting the entries. ..5.. ## **WP(C).No.5305 OF 2020(K)** Paragraph 9 of the said decision reads thus: _**“That apart, it is the admitted case of the respondents that it is after due survey and inspection of the subject property that the land was earlier classified as 'garden land' or 'purayidam', which is clearly recorded in the Basic Tax Register in relation to the subject property. Therefore, the said description in the vital statutory document like BTR as per R.4 cannot be distributed merely because of the respondents find subsequently that there are some old records like the old settlement register, which show the description of the property otherwise. The said approach of the respondents is to say the least arbitrary and against the statutory provisions and therefore it is illegal and ultra vires.”**_ 9. The Revenue Authority is having power to re-assess the land based on the type and the nature of land under the Kerala Land Tax Act. It cannot be revisited merely, pointing out the entry in the settlement register. If the records have been corrected based on the existence of the facts, after a long distance of time it cannot be corrected or reviewed unless it was factually incorrect. No doubt, if type of the land has to be treated as a wet land or paddy land, based on factual criteria it is possible to review or correct such action. If no factual matters exist to review or correct the records, such correction shall not be done after more than a decade. **WP(C).No.5305 OF 2020(K)** **==> picture [37 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** In the light of discussion as above, I am of the view that the land belonged to the petitioner in Sy.Nos. 104/1 and 104/2 having an extent of 32.5 has to be treated as 'purayidam' in basic tax register and all other revenue records. The legal heirs of A.B. Mohammed shall be given all revenue certificates, receipts etc., treating it as 'purayidam'. Ordered accordingly. **Sd/-** **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE** **JUDGE** **PR** ## **WP(C).No.5305 OF 2020(K)** ..7.. ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION IN O.P.NO.1626 OF 1997.** **EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.819 OF 2001 OF ERNAKULAM SUB REGISTRY.** - **EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 21.02.2014, ISSUED FROM ERNAKULAM VILLAGE.** **EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX PAID ON 21.02.2017, ISSUED FROM ERNAKULAM VILLAGE.** - **EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX DATED 28.07.2018, ISSUED FROM ERNAKULAM VILLAGE.** - **EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX DATED 07.05.2019, ISSUED FROM ERNAKULAM VILLAGE.** - **EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 09.07.2019, ISSUED FROM ERNAKULAM VILLAGE.** - **EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.01.2020 AND POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 20.01.2020, ISSUED FROM ERNAKULAM VILLAGE.** **EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE THAHSILDAR ERNAKULAM DATED 02.11.1976.** ## **WP(C).No.5305 OF 2020(K)** ..8.. **EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE GCDA DATED 27.06.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P11 THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY.** **EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE THAHASILDAR, KANAYANNUR UNDER SECTION 6A OF LAND TAX ACT DATED 18.02.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P13 THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT OF PROPERTY COMPRISED IN SY.NO.104/1 HAVING AN EXTEN OF 9.35 ARES AND SY.NO.104/2 HAVING AN EXTEN OF 3.80 ARES IN THE NAME OF LEGAL HEIRS OF MUHAMMED,M ALUNKALPARAMBIL, ISSUED FROM ERNAKULAM VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 30.06.2004** **EXHIBIT P14 THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT PF PROPERTY COMPRISED IN SY.NO.104/2 HAVING AN EXTENT OF 9.35 ARES AD SY.104/2 HAVING AN EXTENT OF 3.80 ARES IN IN THE NAME OF LEGAL HEIRS OF MUHAMMED,ALUNKALAPARAMBIL, ISSUED FROM ERNAKUKAM VILLAGE OFFICER DATTED 0703-2006** - **EXHIBIT P15 THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT OF PROPERTY COMPRISED IN SY.NO.104/1 HAVING AN EXTENT OF 9.35 ARES IN THE NAME OF LEGAL HEIRS OF MUHAMMED, ALUNKALAPARAMBIL, ISSUED FORM ERNAKULA VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 12-02-2007** **EXHIBIT P16 THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT OF PROPERTY COMPRISED IN SY.NO.104/1 HAVING AN EXTENT OF 9.35 ARES AND SY.NO.104/2 HAVING AN EXTENT OF 3.90 ARES IN THE NAME OF LEGAL HEIRS OF MUHAMMED, ALUNKALAPRAMBIL, ISSUED FROM ERNAKULA VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 18-02-2008** **WP(C).No.5305 OF 2020(K)** ..9.. ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:** |**ANNEXURE R1(a)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE**| |---|---| ||**SETTLEMENT REGISTER MAINTAINED IN THE**| ||**KANAYANNUR TALUK WITH RESPECT TO**| ||**SY.NOS.104/1 AND 104/2.**| |**ANNEXURE R1(b)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF**| ||**THANDAPPER REGISTER WITH RESPECT TO**| ||**SY.NOS.104/1 AND 104/2.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(a)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD NO. 10/81.**| |**EXHIBIT R4(b)**|**TRUE COPY OF G.O(MS) NO. 106/71 DATED**| ||**21.07.1971.**|