High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition disposed of; liberty granted for reass...

Joseph Mathew v. Revenue Division Officer, Fort Kochi; Village Officer, Elamkulam Village; Tahasildar, Kanayannur Taluk; Greater Cochin Development Authority

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.14098 of 2020 (J)

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date
2021-02-03
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition disposed of; petitioner granted liberty to approach the third respondent for reassessment of the land covered by Exts.P1–P3 as dry land and to reflect the present classification in the Basic Tax Register, within two months from the date of receipt of the application for reassessment.
Final Disposition
Petition disposed of; liberty granted for reassessment and classification update; two-month time frame for completion of reassessment.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Joseph Mathew

Respondents

  • The Revenue Division Officer, Revenue Division Office, Fort Kochi
  • The Village Officer, Elamkulam Village, Kadavathra, Ernakulam
  • Tahasildar, Kanayannur Taluk, Marine Drive, Ernakulam
  • Greater Cochin Development Authority, Kadavathra, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. P. Viswanathan (Sr.)
  • • Sri. Ajith Viswanathan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Smti. Mini.V.A.
  • • Sri. G. Ranjita, GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

Joseph Mathew, the petitioner, sought permission to change the user of 38 cents of land at Elamkulam Village, Kochi, acquired by the Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) under a Town Planning Scheme sanctioned by the Government. The land, though intended for residential allotment under the scheme, is shown in revenue records as Nilam (unutilized paddy land). The petitioner moved a writ petition challenging Ext.P12, an order directing him to obtain permission for a change of land use under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. He invoked Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order to obtain such permission, and argued that the land has been developed by a governmental agency under town planning provisions, hence the Act should not apply. The petitioner relied on judgments in State of Kerala v. Binu Mathew Chacko and others (2020 (6) KHC 717) and Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2020 (5) KLT 403), which held that lands acquired under development schemes need not be subjected to the Act and that permission is effectively deemed under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. The court disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to seek reassessment of the land as dry land before the third respondent, directing that such reassessment and corresponding Basic Tax Register entries be made within two months of the application.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization OrderTown Planning Act 1108

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner sought permission to use land for other purposes under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, contending that the land is dry and developed by GCDA under a town planning scheme; Ext.P12 requires him to obtain permission under Section 27A of the KCLA Act; He relies on State of Kerala v. Binu Mathew Chacko and Iype Varghese to argue that the Act does not apply to lands developed under government schemes and that permission is deemed to have been granted under the Kerala Land Utilization Order.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the petitioner must comply with the statutory regime, including obtaining permission under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Section 27A) and that Ext.P12 remains in force pending proper reassessment by the competent authorities.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Kerala and others v. Binu Mathew Chacko and others2020 (6) KHC 717PositiveCourt relied on this decision to hold that the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act do not apply to lands acquired, developed and allotted under development schemes by governmental agencies; permission is deemed to have been granted under the Kerala Land Utilization Order.
Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer2020 (5) KLT 403PositiveCourt cited this ruling to support the proposition that where statutory permission for change of user is granted, the Land Tax Act requires a fresh assessment and corresponding entries in the Basic Tax Register.

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 Joseph Mathew v. Revenue Division Officer, Fort Kochi; Village Officer, Elamkulam Village; Tahasildar, Kanayannur Taluk; 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA,1942** ## **WP(C).No.14098 OF 2020(J)** ## **PETITIONER:** **JOSEPH MATHEW, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, CHETHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.63/2099, JOSE FARMS, NEAR KADAVANTHARA MARKET, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI-682 020.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.P.VISWANATHAN (SR.) SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISION OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, PIN CODE 682 001. *2 ADDL.R2.THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM, PIN CODE-682020. *3 ADDL.R3. TAHASILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM, PIN CODE-682011.** 2 W.P.(C) No.14098 of 2020 - ***4 ADDL.R4. GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM PIN CODE-682020. (*ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS NOS.2, 3 AND 4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA 1/2020 DATED 3-22021).** **R4 BY ADV. SMT.MINI.V.A. SMT.G RANJITA GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 W.P.(C) No.14098 of 2020 ## **W.P.(C) No.14098 of 2020** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioner obtained 38 cents of land situated in Elamkulam Village as per Exts.P1 to P3 assignment deeds from the Greater Cochin Development Authority (the GCDA). The land covered by the assignment deeds in favour of the petitioner is one acquired by the GCDA under a Town Planning Scheme sanctioned by the Government under the Town Planning Act 1108 for allotment for residential purpose. The land obtained by the petitioner, however, is shown in the revenue records as 'Nilam'. It is alleged by the petitioner that on account of the said reason, the petitioner is unable to obtain a building permit in respect of the land. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an application for permission to make use of the land for other purposes invoking Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land 4 W.P.(C) No.14098 of 2020 Utilization Order. The said application was dismissed by the respondent as per Ext.P12 order holding that the petitioner has to obtain permission for the said purpose under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). Ext.P12 order is under challenge in the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. Exts.P1 to P3 assignment deeds indicate that the land covered by the assignment deeds in favour of the petitioner is a land acquired by the GCDA under a Town Planning Scheme sanctioned by the Government under the Town Planning Act 1108 for allotment for residential purpose. In **State of Kerala and others** **v. Binu Mathew Chacko and others,** 2020 (6) KHC 717, a Division Bench of this court held that the provisions of the Act will not have any application to the lands acquired, developed and allotted for residential or other purposes by Governmental agencies under development schemes framed under the Town Planning legislation. It is also held by the Division Bench in the said case that permission is W.P.(C) No.14098 of 2020 5 deemed to have been granted for such lands under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. In **Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer,** 2020 (5) KLT 403, this Court held that where statutory permission for change of user of land is granted for conversion of a paddy land to a garden land, then it is the obligation of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Tax Act to make a fresh assessment of the land so as to collect the higher land tax for such converted land and to issue appropriate directions to the officers concerned to make additional entries in the Basic Tax Register so as to reflect the nature of the land as garden land/Purayidam in the said Register. In the light of the said judgments of this Court, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the third respondent for re-assessment of the land covered by Exts.P1 to P3 assignment deeds as dry land and directing further that in the event of the petitioner approaching the third respondent for the said purpose, the third respondent shall re-assess the land of the petitioner as dry land and make appropriate additional entry in the Basic Tax Register relating to the land indicating the present W.P.(C) No.14098 of 2020 6 classification of the land, within two months from the date of receipt of the application for re-assessment. **Sd/-** **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE** YKB W.P.(C) No.14098 of 2020 7 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1179 OF 1983 OF SRO, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P2** **THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1180/1983 OF SRO, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P3** - **THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1221/2004 OF SRO, ERNAKULAM.** - **EXHIBIT P4** - **THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF GO(MS) 44/74/LA AND SWD DATED 26/2/1974 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE NO.15 DATED 9/4/1974.** - **EXHIBIT P4(A) THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REVISED MAP SHOWING THE PLOTS ALLOCATION IN SURVEY NOS.375 AND 376 OF ELAMKULAM VILLAGE.** - **EXHIBIT P4(B) THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO.9610/PL3/2018/GCDA DATED 5/12/2018.** **EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF BASIC TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 20/12/2018.** - **EXHIBIT P5(A)** - **THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF BASIC TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 31/12/2018.** - **EXHIBIT P6** **THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BTR ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, ELAMKULAM.** 8 W.P.(C) No.14098 of 2020 **EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, ELAMKULAM.** **EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 19/06/2018.** - **EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE.** - **EXHIBIT P9(A) THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE DATED 27/11/2018.** - **EXHIBIT P10 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF REPORT DATED 13/11/2018 PREPARED BY THE AGRICULTURAL FIELD OFFICER, COCHIN CORPORATION.** - **EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/01/2020 PASSED IN WP(C) NO.4431/2019.** - **EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/3/20 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **PA TO JUDGE**