High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-12-21Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside...

Maya P. Nair v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.21942 of 2020 (P)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
Judgment Date: 2020-12-21
Court Decision / Holding: The impugned proceedings are set aside; the petitioner’s land should be retained as a purayidam in the Basic Tax Register. Tahsildar (LR) to online-correct the records within one month to restore the purayidam classification.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside; restoration of purayidam in BTR with online correction within one month.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Maya P. Nair

Respondents

State of Kerala, represented by Secretary Revenue (P) Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
The Director of Surveys, Office of the Director of Surveys and Land Records Department, Thiruvananthapuram
The Superintendent, Department of Re-survey, Office of the Survey and Land Records Department, Thiruvananthapuram
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruvananthapuram
The Head Surveyor, Office of the Head Surveyor No.III, Re-Survey, Thiruvananthapuram
The Tahsildar, Office of the Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram
The Village Officer, Vanjiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. Peeyus A. Kottam
• Sri. Hrithwik D. Namboothiri

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri S Gopinathan
• Sri G. Ranjita

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court considers whether land shown as purayidam in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) can be reclassified as nilam (paddy land) solely on the basis of the settlement register. The petitioner owns 21.5 cents in Sy. Nos. 2209/1 and 2210/1 at Vanchiyoor, Thiruvananthapuram. Although classified as purayidam earlier, settlement records in 2017 described the land as nilam, leading to changes in the BTR. A prior writ petition (WP(C) No.25142/2016) resulted in directions to obtain LLMC input; the LLMC report noted the presence of a concrete road and residential structures, and that the property was not suitable for paddy cultivation, with the draft data-bank and village records continuing to show purayidam. Ext.P12 (2.08.2017) order of the Survey Superintendent reclassified the land as nilam, which the petitioner challenged as improper. The court held that revocation or alteration of land classification under the Kerala Land Tax Act, Section 18, must rest on factual details of the land’s nature as of the date of correction, not merely on an old settlement description. Referring to Indira P.S. v. Sub Collector (2020 (4) KHC 33), the court concluded that the Basic Tax Register’s description cannot be disturbed merely due to settlement records. The petition is allowed; the impugned proceedings are set aside and the land must be restored as purayidam in the BTR, with online correction within one month.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 – Section 18Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 – Section 27A(3)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

BTR description cannot be disturbed merely because of the settlement register (nilam description).
Corrections under Section 18 must be based on factual criteria about the land’s nature on the date of correction, not on settlement records alone.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the land remains purayidam in the Basic Tax Register and should be retained as such; the 2017 settlement-register nilam description and the Ext.P12 reclassification are erroneous. The correction under Section 18 of the Kerala Land Tax Act must be grounded in the land’s factual nature, not merely settlement entries. The LLMC report and prior order (WP(C)25142/2016) support restoration of purayidam in BTR.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that land classification can be corrected based on the land’s nature, with Section 18 allowing correction within four years; the settlement register’s nilam entry and subsequent reclassification aim to reflect the land’s status, aided by LLMC inputs.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Indira P.S. and Others v. Sub Collector, Fort Kochi and Another	2020 (4) KHC 33	Positive	Cited to support the principle that BTR descriptions cannot be disturbed merely due to old settlement records that describe land as nilam.

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 Maya P. Nair v. State of Kerala and Others 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** **MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.21942 OF 2020(P)** ## **PETITIONER:** **MAYA P.NAIR, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.C.T.JAYAKUMAR, T.C.1/903, “CHALUVILAKOM”, OPP. MEDICAL COLLEGE HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.** **BY ADVS. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM SHRI. HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY REVENUE (P) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEYS, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEYS AND LAND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **3 THE SUPERINTENDENT DEPARTMENT OF RESURVEY, OFFICE OF THE SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.** - **4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 004.** - **5 THE HEAD SURVEYOR, OFFICE OF THE HEAD SURVEYOR NO.III, RE-SURVEY, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 002.** - **6 THE TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** - **7 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VANJIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035.** - **BY ADV. SRI.S GOPINATHAN, SR. GP SMT.G.RANJITA, GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.21942 OF 2020(P)** **-2-** ## **JUDGMENT** **Dated this the 21st day of December 2020** The short issue in this case is whether a land which is shown as _purayidam_ in Basic Tax Register (BTR) can be corrected based on the settlement register. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the land having an extent of 21.500 cents and 2.204 cents comprised in Sy.Nos. 2209/1 and 2210/1 respectively in Vanchiyoor Village in Thiruvananthapuram District. Admittedly, as per the instructions given to the learned Government Pleader an through electronic medium, the land has been classified as a _purayidam_ before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 28 of 2008'). However, subsequently noting **WP(C).No.21942 OF 2020(P)** **-3-** the description of the land in settlement register as a _nilam_ , in the year 2017, the changes have been effected in BTR showing the land as a _nilam_ . 3. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C)No.25142 of 2016. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 13.12.2016 after observing para.3 as follows: _3. This Court had called for a report of the LLMC, which is produced along with a memo dated 26.11.2016 and reads as under:_ _“On inspection of the 24 cents property of Smt.Maya P.Nayar, TC 1/903, Kumarapuram having Survey Nos.2209/1, 2210/1 at Vanchiyoor Village, it is hereby report that in front of the property, Concrete road is there and on the sides residential houses are there. At present, a 40 year old concrete building is in the property, in addition to this 60 year old coconut palms, one teak tree etc. are also there. This property is not suitable for paddy cultivation._ _The property is included as 'Purayidam' in the draft data bank and also as in revenue records issued by Vanchiyoor Village Officer”._ ## The direction was given to the 2[nd] respondent to effect changes in re-survey records after obtaining **WP(C).No.21942 OF 2020(P)** **-4-** necessary report. 4. Thereafter, Ext.P12 order, dated 02.08.2017, has been passed by the Survey Superintendent. He rejected the petitioner's objection and justified the description of the land as a _nilam_ , stating on the reason that as per the Settlement Register, the land is described as a _nilam_ . This order is challenged in this writ petition. 5. It is open for the Revenue Authority to reclassify the land based on the nature and lie of the property. The nature of the property is described in the record for the purpose of the land tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Authority is competent to reclassify the land depend upon the nature of the land. If the land has been classified in BTR based on the existence fact, that cannot be **WP(C).No.21942 OF 2020(P)** **-5-** revisited unless there is a foul play on the part of holder of the land. Under Section 18 of the Kerala Land Tax Act, a power is given to authorities to correct any mistake within a period of 4 years. Even for correction, there must exists factual details as to the nature of the land as on the date of correction. A correction cannot be ordered to be carried out merely based on description in the settlement register. There must exists factual criteria to reclassify the land as a _nilam_ . The Survey Superintendent is attempting to reclassify the land merely referring to the settlement register. In fact, similar issue has considered by this Court in **Indira P.S. and Others v. Sub Collector, Fort Kochi and Another [2020 (4) KHC 33]** and held that description in BTR cannot be disturbed merely **WP(C).No.21942 OF 2020(P)** **-6-** because of some old records like in the settlement register, the property has been described as a _nilam_ . 6. In the light of the above, I am of the view that the impugned proceedings have to be set aside. The petitioner's property referred to as above should be retained as a _purayidam_ in BTR. Any correction carried out to reclassify the land as a _nilam_ has to be dropped. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are set aside. Needful shall be done to restore the classification of the land as a _purayidam,_ within a period of one month. The Tahsildar (LR) is directed to correct the records through online, within the aforesaid period. The writ petition is disposed of as above. **Sd/-** **A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE** akv **WP(C).No.21942 OF 2020(P)** **-7-** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.2977/05**| |---|---| ||**DATED 20.6.2005.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER**| ||**PERTAINING TO PETITIONER'S PROPERTY HAVING**| ||**23.704 ARES HAVING THANDAPER ACCOUNT**| ||**NO.27645.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED**| ||**10.6.2016 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL VILLAGE**| ||**OFFICER, VANJIYOOR IN THE NAME OF THE**| ||**PETITIONER PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY IN**| ||**SURVEY NO.2209/1 AND 2210/1 OF VANJIYOOR**| ||**VILLAGE.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY**| ||**THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED 10.6.2016**| ||**ALONG WITH COPY OF THE DATA BANK.**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT**| ||**ISSUED BY THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| ||**CORPORATION SHOWING PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX**| ||**FOR THE BUILDING NO. TC 13/915 FOR THE YEAR**| ||**2015-16 DATED 30.3.2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16.6.2016**| ||**BEFORE THE DIRECTOR, SURVEY AND LAND**| ||**RECORDS, TRIVANDRUM.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION**| ||**SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16.6.2016**| ||**BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY**| ||**LLMC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION IN**| ||**W.P.(C) 25142/2016 DATED 8.11.2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED**| ||**13.12.2016 IN WP(C) NO.25142/2016.**| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED**| ||**11.9.2020 SHOWING PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX**| ||**FOR THE YEAR 2020-2011 FOR THE AFORESAID**| ||**PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.**| **WP(C).No.21942 OF 2020(P)** **-8-** **EXHIBIT P11** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN 2020 (4) KHC 33 (INDIRA P.S. & OTHERS VS. SUB COLLECTOR, FORT KOCHI & ANOTHER.** **EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT DATED 2.08.2017. EXHIBIT P13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 27 A (3) OF KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND ACT, 2008 DATED 26.9.2020 ALONG WITH FORM 9 APPLICATION.** ## **RESPONDENT'S / S EXHIBITS : NIL.** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE