High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed; Ext P5 quashed; directiv...

Hanees K Hakkim v. The Tahasildar Paravur Taluk and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 15556 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Judgment Date
2022-08-23
Court Decision / Holding
Ext P5 is set aside. The court directs the 6th respondent to consider and dispose Ext P4 once again under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition
Writ petition allowed; Ext P5 quashed; directive to reconsider Ext P4 under Sec.6A within one month.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • HANEES K HAKKIM

Respondents

  • The Tahasildar Paravur Taluk
  • The Revenue Divisional Officer Fort Kochi
  • The District Collector Ernakulam
  • The Village Officer Kadungallur Village
  • The Local Level Monitoring Committee Elooor Municipality represented by its Convener, Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Elooor Municipality, Udyogamandal P.O.
  • The Tahasildar (Land Records) Paravur Taluk
  • Agricultural Officer Krishi Bhavan, Elooor Municipality, Udyogamandal P.O.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • P.M. Ziraj
  • • Irfan Ziraj

Counsels for Respondents

  • • SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

WP(C) No. 15556 of 2022, filed by Hanees K. Hakkim, challenges Ext P5, an order passed by the sixth respondent under the Kerala Land Tax Act. The petitioner asserts that his land was wrongly classified as garden land in the draft data bank, while Ext P3 (issued under the Kerala Land Utilization Order) shows that the land had already been converted, rendering the land a purayidam. In reliance on Ext P4 submitted under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, the petitioner seeks a fresh entry reflecting the conversion. The first respondent rejected Ext P4 on the ground that only the Sub Collector can decide such applications and that Ext P2 contains no direction to alter revenue entries. The petitioner contends Ext P5 is irregular and that Tahsildar has authority to pass such orders, supported by Kerala High Court precedents including Kaipadath Property Development Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Kerala, Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala, Joseph C.J. v. RDO/Fort Kochi, and Iype Varghese v. RDO, which hold Tahsildar authority in similar proceedings. After hearing, the Court finds merit in the petition, sets aside Ext P5, and directs the 6th respondent to consider Ext P4 afresh within a month, with Ext P2/Ext P3 inconsistencies addressed and corrected as needed, following cited precedents.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Tax Act, 1972 - Section 6AClause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that his land, though shown as garden land in the draft data bank, had already been converted under Ext P3 issued under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. The predecessor converted the land to purayidam and the petitioner submitted Ext P4 under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act seeking a fresh entry. Ext P5 was issued by the sixth respondent without proper authority, since Ext P2 contains no directive to alter revenue entries. The petitioner relies on decisions Kaipadath Property Development Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Kerala; Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala; Joseph C.J. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi; and Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki to argue Tahsildar is the competent officer to pass such orders. The relief sought includes setting aside Ext P5, directing fresh consideration of Ext P4, and correcting the data bank; the petitioner also requests an erratum publication to reflect the conversion.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that Ext P4/Ext P5 were issued by competent authorities and that Ext P2 did not direct changes to revenue entries. The authority to entertain Ext P4 lies with the Sub Collector, and the data bank entries require lawful authorization to be altered. They contend Ext P5 accords with due process and that the writ petition should be dismissed or await proper procedures.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Kaipadath Property Development Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Kerala and others2011 (1) KHC 29PositiveCited by petitioner; used to support Tahsildar’s authority and the procedure in similar orders.
Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala and others2020 (5) KHC 490PositiveCited to reinforce the petitioner's argument on conversion and eligibility of Tahsildar to pass such orders.
Joseph C.J. v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Sub Collector, Fort Kochi and others2021 (5) KHC 298PositiveCited for Tahsildar's authority over such orders.
Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki and others2020 (6) KHC 770PositiveCited to show Tahsildar is the authority to pass such orders.

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 Hanees K Hakkim v. The Tahasildar Paravur Taluk and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

**WP(C) NO. 15556 OF 2022** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **TUESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 1ST BHADRA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 15556 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER/S:** HANEES K HAKKIM AGED 32 YEARS S/O.ABDUL HAKKIM, KODAPPILLY HOUSE, KUTTIKKATTUKARA P.O., KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683501 BY ADVS. P.M.ZIRAJ IRFAN ZIRAJ ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE THAHASILDAR PARAVUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683513 2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682001 3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682031 4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KADUNGALLUR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683110 5 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE ELOOR MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, ELOOR MUNICIPALITY, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., **WP(C) NO. 15556 OF 2022** **2** PIN - 683501 6 THE THAHASILDAR (LAND RECORDS) PARAVUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683513 7 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, ELOOR MUNICIPALITY, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN – 683501 SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 15556 OF 2022** **3** ## **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.15556 of 2022** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of August, 2022** ## **JUDGMENT** ## The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : 1. “Issue a writ or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order by call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext P5 order and set aside the same as illegal. 2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the sixth respondent to consider and dispose Ext P4 application submitted by the petitioner under Section 6A of Kerala Land Tax Act afresh within a reasonable period which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case. 3. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order by call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext P2 data bank and remove Sy.No.4/6 of Kadungallur Village, Paravur Taluk, Ernakulam District therein which is the inclusion of the property of petitioner **WP(C) NO. 15556 OF 2022** **4** in the data bank since the property covered by the petitioner comprised in said survey number is already converted property on the basis of Ext P3 Kerala Land Utilization orders. 4. Direct the fifth respondent to publish and erratum notification by remove the property of petitioner in Survey No.4/6 from the Ext P2 data bank within a reasonable period which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case. 5. Issue such other writ, orders or directions, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and circumstances of then case.” [SIC] 2. It is the case of the petitioner that his entire land has been classified as garden land in the draft data bank. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had obtained Ext.P3 order from the 2[nd] respondent under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. The predecessor of the petitioner converted the entire land immediately after issuance of Ext.P3 by complying all the conditions therein and thereby converted the land into purayidam is the submission of the petitioner. The petitioner approached the 1[st] respondent and submitted **WP(C) NO. 15556 OF 2022** **5** Ext.P4 application along with duly filled Form A under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act 1972 and thereby requested to make necessary entry regarding the land of the petitioner. Thereafter, the 1[st] respondent rejected the application of the petitioner by Ext.P5 order on the ground that the authority to consider the application is the Sub Collector and moreover, there is no direction in Ext.P2 to change the entry in revenue records. According to the petitioner, Ext.P5 order passed by the 6[th] respondent is materially irregular and against the provisions of the law since the property of the petitioner is a converted one and the petitioner already obtained order under Kerala Land Utilization Order. The petitioner contended that there is no dispute to the fact that the land is covered by Ext.P3 order issued under Kerala Land Utilization Order. The counsel relied the judgment of this Court in **Kaipadath Property Development Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Kerala and others** [2011 (1) KHC 29] and in **Lalu P.S. v. State of Kerala** **WP(C) NO. 15556 OF 2022** **6** **and others** [2020 (5) KHC 490] and **Joseph C.J. v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Fortkochi and others** [2021 (5) KHC 298]. The counsel also relied the judgment of this Court in **Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki and others** [2020 (6) KHC 770] in which it is stated that Tahsildar is the authority to pass such orders. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. After going through the pleadings and the arguments of the petitioner, I think there is force in the arguments of the petitioner. The point raised by the petitioner is considered by this Court in the above decisions relied by the petitioner. Therefore, Ext.P5 can be set aside and the prayers in the writ petition can be allowed. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner : 1) Ext.P5 is set aside. **WP(C) NO. 15556 OF 2022** **7** 2) There will be a direction to the 6[th] respondent to consider and dispose Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioner under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act afresh as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. SD/- **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **JUDGE** SKS **WP(C) NO. 15556 OF 2022** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15556/2022** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT IN CONNECTION| ||WITH THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER DATED| ||31.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DATA| ||BANK ISSUED BY THE SEVENTH RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2021| ||BEARING NO.K4-7022/17KDIZ ISSUED BY THE| ||SECOND RESPONDENT UNDER CLAUSE 6 OF THE| ||KERALA LAND UTILIZATION ORDER| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY| ||THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT| ||DATED 12.01.2021 UNDER SECTION 6A OF KERALA| ||LAND TAX ACT WITHOUT DOCUMENTS| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF SIXTH RESPONDENT| ||DATED 27.01.2022| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS| ||HONOURABLE COURT DATED 19.03.2021 IN W.P.C.| ||NO. 6374 OF 2021| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS| ||HONOURABLE COURT DATED 08.02.2022 IN WPC| ||NO. 22081 OF 2021|