Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Mudavur; Tahasildar (Land Records), Taluk Office, Kothamangalam; Taluk Surveyor, Taluk Office, Kothamangalam; Village Officer, Village Office, Kothamangalam

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2020 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.10369 OF 2020(U)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **GEO PETER AGED 54 YEARS S/O.PETER, OLIYAPURATH, RAMALLUR KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK 686691** **BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER R.D.O.OFFICE, MUDAVUR.P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA 686669 2 THE TAHASILDAR(LAND RECORDS), TALUK OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM.P.O, 686691 3 THE TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM.P.O 686691 4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTHAMANGLAM.P.O 686691** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.K.J.MANU RAJ, GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.05.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING** **WP(C).No.10369 OF 2020(U)** **2** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ## **----------------------------------------W.P.(C.) No. 10369 of 2020 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of May, 2020** ## **JUDGMENT** The case set up in this W.P.(C.) is as follows : That the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court seeking a direction to the 1[st] respondent to consider Ext.P8 representation submitted by him to issue a corrigendum to Ext.P3 KLU order for correction of a mistake crept in it as regards the extent of his land in Survey Nos. 1007/1A and Survey No.1007/B of Kothamangalam Village whereby instead of 13.75 ares in Survey No.1007/1A, a lesser extent of 11.50 ares is shown and instead of 4.5 ares in Survey No.1007/1B, a lesser extent of 2.38 ares is shown in Ext.P3. The net result of the said mistake is that the said 3.92 ares (9.68 cents) which have been mistakenly left out of the KLU order is still retained in the BTR as Nilam whereas the remaining extent has been reassessed and reclassified as Purayidam. The petitioner is the title holder a total extent of 30.75 ares as per his Title Deed & the BTR i.e. 12.95 Ares comprised in survey No.1006/7A, 13.75 ares of property comprised in Survey No.1007/1A, and 4.05 ares of property comprised in Survey No.1007/1B of Kothamangalam Village. He submitted Ext.P2 application prior to 30.12.2017 before the 1[st] respondent under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order to make use of the said 30.75 ares for non agricultural purposes. By **WP(C).No.10369 OF 2020(U)** **3** judgment dated 27.11.2017 in W.P.(C.) No.37961/2017, this Court directed the 1[st] respondent to pass orders on Ext.P2 within one month. Subsequently, the 1[st] respondent passed Ext.P3 KLU order in which instead of the total extent of 30.75 ares, permission was granted for a lesser extent of 26.83 ares which was justified by stating that as per the measurement sketch by Taluk Surveyor, only 26.83 ares exist on the ground. The impugned conditions in Ext.P3 KLU order to pay the prescribed amount & to set apart 10% of land for water conservancy measures were quashed by the judgment reported in 2019 (4) KHC 400. Subsequently, for conducting reassessment as per Sec.6A of the Land Tax Act, the petitioner's land was again measured by the Taluk Surveyor with the aid of Litho plan from which it has been found as per Ext.P5 measurement sketch that the actual extent of the petitioner's land is 30.75 ares and the said sketch has been approved by the head surveyor. However, the 2[nd] respondent reclassified only 26.83 ares as purayidam by Ext.P5 order and retained the balance extent as nilam in the BTR as Ext.P3 KLU only shows the lesser extent of 26.83 ares instead of 30.75 ares. As a result, 3.92 ares (9.68 cents) of the petitioner's land still remains as nilam in the BTR on account of the mistake. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 before the 1[st] respondent to issue a corrigendum to Ext.P3 KLU order to include the said 3.92 ares (9.68 cents) ares as well in Ext.P3, which is not being considered. 2. The main contentions urged by the petitioner are as follows : **WP(C).No.10369 OF 2020(U)** **4** A. The lesser extent of 26.83 ares as shown in Ext.P3 is a parent mistake which is evident from the subsequent survey conducted for reassessment. B. If the said mistake as regards the extent of land is not corrected, the petitioner would be put to irreparable hardships as 3.92 ares (9.68 cents) of his land which has been retained as Nilam in the BTR due to the mistake in Ext.P3, cannot be put to use for any non-agricultural purpose. C. If a corrigendum to Ext.P3 is not issued, it would become virtually redundant and unenforceable as without the extent of the land mistakenly left out, the land for which permission has been granted cannot be put to any useful purpose. 3. It is in the light of these averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed the instant W.P.(C.) with the following prayers : _(i) “Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to issue a corrigendum to Ext.P3 KLU order by including 2.25 ares of the petitioner's land in Survey No.1007/1A and 1.67 ares of the petitioner's land in Survey No.1007/1B of Kothamangalam Village which have been mistakenly left out of Ext.P3 KLU order from out of the total extent of the petitioner's land for which permission was sought by Ext.P2 application._ _(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2[nd] respondent to issue a corrigendum to Ext.P5 reassessment order by reassessing and reclassifying 2.25 ares of the petitioner's land in Survey No.1007/1A and 1.67 Ares of the petitioner's land in Survey No.1007/1B of Kothamangalam Village as purayidam as has been done in respect of the petitioner's remaining land on the basis of Ext.P3 order._ _(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1[st] respondent to consider Ext.P8 representation requesting the 1[st] respondent to issue a corrigendum to Ext.P3 KLU order by including 2.25 ares of the petitioner's land in Survey No.1007/1A and 1.67 Ares of the petitioner's land in Survey No.1007/1B of Kothamangalam Village which have been mistakenly left out of Ext.P3 KLU order, in the light of Ext.P4 survey sketch of the Taluk Surveyor, Kothamangalam and the Basic Tax Register and to pass orders thereon within a specified time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court._ _(iv) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the extent of the petitioner's land in Survey No.1007/1A has been mistakenly shown as 11.50 Ares instead of 13.75 ares and in Survey No.1007/1B has been mistakenly shown as 2.38 Ares instead of_ **WP(C).No.10369 OF 2020(U)** **5** _4.05 ares and that the 1[st] respondent is bound to issue a corrigendum to Ext.P3 KLU order by including from out of the total extent of the petitioner's land for which permission was sought by Ext.P2 appication and the 2[nd] repsondent is bound to make consequential reassessment and reclassification by issuing a corrigendum to Ext.P5 reassessment order by reassessing and reclassifying 2.25 ares of the petitioner's land in Survey No.1007/1A and 1.67 Ares of the petitioner's land in Survey No.1007/1B ares of Kothamangalam village as purayidam._ _(v) Pass such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper to issue in the circumstances of the case.”_ 4. Heard Sri.Rinny Stephen Chamaparampil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.J.Manuraj, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 5. Sri.Rinny Stephen Chamaparampil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would point out that the total extent of the properties covered in Ext.P2 application filed under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 is 30.75 comprising of an extent of 12.95 ares of property in survey No.1006/7A, 13.75 ares of property lying in survey No. 1007/1A and the remaining 4.05 ares of property comprised in survey No.1007/1B of Kothamangalam Village. Pursuant to the inspection conducted in the matter, the 1[st] respondent has passed Ext.P3 order dated 17.5.2018 granting permission for change of user of the land under Rule 6(2) only for an extent of 26.83 ares as per Ext.P3 proceedings dated 17.5.2018 on the ground that the remaining extent of land is not seen in the possession of the petitioner etc. 6. That the petitioner then thought that the abovesaid factual assertion made by the officials of the Revenue Department is correct. That the petitioner had also submitted the consequential application in terms of Sec. 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act for fresh assessment/re-assessment of **WP(C).No.10369 OF 2020(U)** **6** the subject property for securing additional entries in the BTR showing the change nature of the land pursuant to Ext.P2 order and the said application was preferred before the 2[nd] respondent Tahsildar. Thereupon, a survey and measurement was got done and Ext.P4 litho survey report submitted by the 3[rd] respondent Taluk Surveyor would show that as a matter of fact the total extent of the subject property would come to 30.75 ares as initially asserted by the petitioner in Ext.P2 application under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order. That in other words, the finding in Ext.P3 KLU order that the petitioner is entitled for such orders only for the limited extent of 26.83 ares has now been found to be factually wrong as can be seen from Ext.P4 litho survey report submitted by the 3[rd] respondent Taluk Surveyor. However, in view of the fact that the 1[st] respondent Revenue Divisional Officer has granted the requisite Rule 6(2) permission as per Ext.P3 order only for an extent of 26.83 ares, the 2[nd] respondent Tahsildar has disposed of petitioner’s application under Sec. 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act for alteration of the BTR entries to change the nature of the land as garden land or purayidom only for the said extent of 26.83 ares in view of Ext.P3 order and the remaining 3.92 ares of land (viz. 30.75 ares - 26.83 ares = 3.92 ares) has been shown as paddy land as per the prior BTR entries. 7. Hence, the petitioner has now submitted Ext.P8 application for correcting Ext.P3 proceedings to ensure that the subject matter of the said **WP(C).No.10369 OF 2020(U)** **7** KLU permission is for the entire 30.75 ares so as not to limit it only to the extent of 26.83 ares mentioned in Ext.P3 etc. and that Ext.P8 petition is pending consideration before the 1[st] respondent Revenue Divisional Officer. Further that, only after the petitioner secures necessary formal orders for the said entire extent of 30.75 ares, can the petitioner make further consequential application under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act before the 2[nd] respondent Tahsildar to ensure that the said balance 3.92 ares of property is also shown as purayidom or garden land, so as to reflect the actual state of affairs etc. 8. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is ordered that the 1[st] respondent will take up for consideration the matters raised by the petitioner in Ext.P8 petition and after calling for a report from the 2[nd] respondent Tahsildar on Ext.P4 litho survey report and after ensuring that an inspection is conducted with due prior notice to the petitioner and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through his authorised representative/counsel, if any should pass orders on merits on the matters raised in Ext.P8 petition, also after taking resort to any other appropriate steps as may be necessary to ascertain the correct factual state of affairs in the matter and also taking note of the submissions of the petitioner based on Ext.P4 litho survey report and all other relevant aspects of the matter, without much delay, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a **WP(C).No.10369 OF 2020(U)** **8** certified copy of this judgment. 9. Needless to say that in case the petitioner secures favourable orders on Ext.P8, then the petitioner will be entitled to file further application before the 2[nd] respondent seeking fresh assessment/reassessment of the subject property in terms of Sec.6A of Kerala Land Tax Act for such remaining/additional land area and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, without much delay, preferably within a period of one month from the date of submission of such application. Further, it is also only observed that since the petitioner has filed the requisite Rule 6(2) application before the cut-off date of 30.12.2017 as can be seen from Ext.P3 proceedings, such orders have to be passed without making the petitioner to pay any extra amounts as conceived as per the amended provisions of the 2008 Act as well as the amended provisions of the Rules in view of the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in _**LLMC**_ , _**Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma**_ [2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB)] and _**Tahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk v. Renjith**_ [2020 (1) KHC 865 (DB)]. With these observations and directions, the above W.P.(C.) will stand finally disposed of. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** SKS **WP(C).No.10369 OF 2020(U)** **9** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT**| |---|---| ||**DATED 06.06.2018 OF THE PETITIONER'S LAND**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER CLAUSE**| ||**6 OF THE KLU ORDER SUBMITTED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.05.2018**| ||**ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE MEASUREMENT SKETCH DATED**| ||**26.10.2019 PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2019**| ||**ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED**| ||**29.11.2019 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE,**| ||**KOTHAMANGALAM**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE**| ||**DATED 02.12.2019 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE**| ||**OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED**| ||**11.05.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER**| ||**BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT**|