High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition disposed of with directions to th...

P. G. Austin v. District Collector, Ernakulam, Tahasildar, Aluva Taluk, Village Officer, Chengamanad Village, Agricultural Officer, Chengamanad Village and Local Level Monitoring Committee, Chengamanad Village, Ernakulam District

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No. 11866 of 2015 (G)
Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON
Judgment Date
2015-04-09
Court Decision / Holding
There will be a direction to the 5th respondent (LLMC) to conduct a spot inspection with notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6, after hearing the petitioner, in accordance with law, and in light of the Supreme Court and Adani decisions; the proceedings shall be completed within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition
Writ petition disposed of with directions to the LLMC to inspect and decide Ext.P6 after hearing, within two months; pass appropriate orders in accordance with law; provide implementation steps to the petitioner and 5th respondent.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • P.G. Austin

Respondents

  • District Collector, Ernakulam
  • Tahasildar, Aluva Taluk
  • Village Officer, Chengamanad Village
  • Agricultural Officer, Chengamanad Village
  • Local Level Monitoring Committee Chengamanad Village, Ernakulam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • George Johnson

Counsels for Respondents

  • • K.C. Vincent

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner P.G. Austin challenges the Basic Tax Register (BTR) entry for his property, contending it is dry/reclaimed land and not Nilam, and seeks correction (Ext.P4) and deletion of erroneous data from the data bank. He also approached the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) through Ext.P6 for relief. The petition raises two main grievances: an error in land classification in the BTR and the absence of proper correction in the data bank, and the scope of relief under the relevant statutes. The court notes that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep, BTR corrections are not permissible under Section 18 of the Kerala Land Tax Act, a position that overrules the High Court’s 2014 Division Bench ruling (2014 (1) KLT 161). Nevertheless, the court recognises the broader principle that conversion prior to the commencement of Act 28 of 2008 may be examined under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, Clause 6(2), enabling a petition before the competent authority for relief. Ext.P5 indicates no cultivation for 9–10 years and describes the land’s condition, including 30-year-old coconut palms. The court directs the LLMC to conduct a spot inspection with notice, hear Ext.P6, and pass orders in accordance with law, after due hearing, and within two months, drawing guidance from Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala. The petitioner is to present a copy of this judgment to the fifth respondent for implementation.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Tax Act, Section 18Kerala Land Utilisation Order, Clause 6(2)Act 28 of 2008

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the BTR classification is erroneous, seeks correction Ext.P4, and requests deletion of mis entries from the data bank; he also relies on Ext.P6 before the LLMC; The legal issue concerns maintainability of BTR corrections under the Kerala Land Tax Act and related orders; relief is sought on the basis of correction under the KLU Order where applicable.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents contend that BTR corrections are not permissible under Section 18 of the Kerala Land Tax Act, citing the Supreme Court decision; the present classification should be upheld; Ext.P5 (Agricultural Officer’s report) is to be considered, and the LLMC may inspect and pass orders consistent with law; the matter should be resolved in accordance with law and the Adani decision guidance.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep2015 (1) KLT 984PositiveSC decision holding BTR corrections are not permissible under Section 18 of the Kerala Land Tax Act.
Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep2014 (1) KLT 161OverruledDivision Bench ruling stands overruled by the later SC decision.
Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala2015 (1) KLT 651Mentioned OnlyCited for guidance on timely disposal; not controlling in the present decision.

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 P. G. Austin v. District Collector, Ernakulam, Tahasildar, Aluva Taluk, Village Officer, Chengamanad Village, Agricultural Officer, Chengamanad Village and Local Level Monitoring Committee, Chengamanad Village, Ernakulam District 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.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON** **THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/19TH CHAITHRA, 1937** ## **WP(C).No. 11866 of 2015 (G)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER** **--------------------------** **P.G.AUSTIN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O K.P.JOHN, PUTHERIKAL HOUSE, MULAVUKAD ERNAKULAM - 682 504** ## **BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JOHNSON** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **----------------------------** **1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM 682 030** **2. THE TAHASILDAR, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 001** **3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 101** **4. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 101** **5. LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 101** **R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. VINCENT** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 11866 of 2015 (G)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** **-------------------------------------** **EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF FAIR VALUE REGISTER PREPARED BY THE SUB COLLECTOR, KOCHI AND PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE DATED 6TH MARCH, 2010 AS GAZETTE NO. 515(12) EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 24/10/2008 OF THE VILLAGE OIFFICE CHENGAMANAD EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE , CHENGAMANAD DATED 25/04/2014 EXT.P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10/07/2014 EXT.P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 09/12/2014 EXT.P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE TREPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16/02/2015** **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **--------------------------------------NIL** **TRUE COPY** **P.A TO JUDGE** ## **SMM** ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,J** ................................................. . **W.P.(C) No.11866 OF 2015** .............................................. Dated this the 9[th] day of April, 2015. ## **J U D G M E N T** The grievance of the petitioner is mainly two fold; firstly that the property which according to the petitioner is a dry land/reclaimed land having effected reclamation before the commencement of Act 28 of 2008 stands described as 'Nilam' in the BTR (Basic Tax Register) and stands also included in the draft data bank register. This made the petitioner to approach the 1[st] respondent by filing Ext.P4 for correction of BTR. The petitioner has also moved the Local Level Monitoring Committee, the 5[th] respondent, by filing Ext.P6, so as to delete the wrong entry from the data bank register, based upon the actual nature of the property. The lapse on the part of the concerned W.P.(C) No.11866 OF 2015 2 respondent made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the Writ petition. 2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. 3. The first question to be considered is whether the 1[st] respondent could be directed to consider Ext.P4 representation to have correction in the 'BTR'. It is to be noted that the legal position stands answered against the petitioner, by virtue of the law declared by the Supreme Court as per the decision reported in **Revenue Divisional Officer vs. Jalaja Dileep (2015 (1) KLT 984)(SC))** to the effect that 'BTR' cannot be corrected, with reference to Section 18 of the Kerala Land Tax Act. The decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, as per the verdict reported in **Revenue Divisional Officer vs. Jalaja Dileep (2014 (1) KLT 161),** stands overruled. This being the position, the relief sought for as above cannot be granted to the petitioner. However, in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court to the effect that, if the property was converted prior to commencement of Act 28 W.P.(C) No.11866 OF 2015 3 of 2008, the parties are at liberty to move the concerned authority by filing necessary petition under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, the petitioner is set at liberty to move the competent authority by filing a proper petition under clause 6(2) of the KLU Order, upon which the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed in accordance with law. 4. With regard to the other grievance, it is stated that the Agricultural Officer, 4[th] respondent has already submitted Ext.P5 report before the District Collector referring to the actual nature of the property. It is stated that the said respondent has certified that no cultivation was being done in the said property for the past 9-10 years. The nature of the property is also discernible therefrom. It is stated that the property is having coconut palms of 30 years of age, along with other trees. It is also stated that actual paddy cultivation was not being done in the said land for the past 9 to 10 years. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already moved the Local Level Monitoring W.P.(C) No.11866 OF 2015 4 Committee by filing Ext.P6, the matter has to considered by the said authority in accordance with law. 5. In such circumstance, there will be a direction to the 5[th] respondent to conduct a spot inspection with notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner and also in the light of the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court as per the verdict reported in **Adani Infrastructure and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (2015 (1) KLT 651).** The proceedings as above shall be completed at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the fifth respondent for further steps. ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE** smm W.P.(C) No.11866 OF 2015 5 smm W.P.(C) No.11866 OF 2015 6 W.P.(C) No.11866 OF 2015 7