High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-08-21Writ petition disposed of with directions to th...

Philip Abraham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kochi; Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk; Village Officer, Edappally South Village; Sub Registrar, Edappally Sub Registrar; Local Level Monitoring Committee represented by its Convenor; State of Kerala; Corporation of Kochi

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.14103 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2023-08-21
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of directing the 1st respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to consider Ext.P22 representation submitted by the petitioner in the light of the judgment of this Court in Sajeev A.V. (Dr.) Supra and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months. It is made clear that the amounts, if any, deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the interim orders in this writ petition shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of with directions to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P22 in light of Sajeev A.V. (Dr.) Supra and pass appropriate orders within two months; interim deposits to be adjusted per final orders.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Philip Abraham

Respondents

Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kochi, Kochi P.O., Ernakulam District-682011
Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk Office, Ernakulam P.O., Ernakulam District-682011
Village Officer, Edappally South Village, Palarivattom P.O., Ernakulam District-682041
Sub Registrar, Office of the Edappally Sub Registrar, Ponekkara P.O., Edappally-682041
Local Level Monitoring Committee, represented by its Convenor, Vyttila Krishibhavan, Vyttila P.O., Ernakulam District-682019
State of Kerala, represented by the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram-695001
Secretary, Corporation of Kochi, Ernakulam District-682035

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Varughese M Easo
• Vivek Varghese P.J.

Counsels for Respondents

• Ranjith – SPL.Government Pleader to AAG
• S S Sudheesh Kumar, SC-Kochi Municipal Corporation
• Varughese M Easo
• K Janardhana Shenoy, SC-Kochi Municipal Corporation

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Philip Abraham, challenges the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules made thereunder, contending that two contiguous plots owned by him, purchased via separate deeds before 31 December 2017 and aggregating to more than 25 cents, should qualify for exemption from payment of the fee for changing the land’s revenue nature. The petitioner sought relief by asserting a decision in Sajeev A.V. (Dr.) v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector (2023 (5) KHC 245) that, in such circumstances, exemptions may be claimed for contiguous lands despite separate documents. He has submitted Ext.P22 before the Revenue Divisional Officer requesting exemption, and the petition prays for the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P22 in light of the Sajeev A.V. decision. The Special Government Pleader notes a writ appeal against Sajeev A.V. Supra, which was dismissed per Revenue Divisional Officer v Dr. A.V. Sajeev (2023 (4) KLT 331). The court ultimately disposes of the petition by directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P22 in light of Sajeev A.V. (Dr.) Supra and pass orders within two months, with any deposited amounts pending final orders.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules made thereunder

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that two contiguously located plots owned via separate title deeds but purchased before 31 December 2017, with total area exceeding 25 cents, should be exempted from the fee for changing revenue records as per the Sajeev A.V. (Dr.) precedent (2023 (5) KHC 245). He relies on Ext.P22 (a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer) and seeks a fresh consideration of his claim under the Sajeev A.V. framework. He submits that the Act’s provisions must be interpreted consistently with the court’s earlier decision and contends that the failure to grant exemption would conflict with the equity established in Sajeev A.V. (Dr.).

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents urge adherence to the statutory framework of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, noting that exemptions, if any, must be grounded in the statute’s language. They point to an appeal against Sajeev A.V. and its dismissal (Revenue Divisional Officer v Dr. A.V. Sajeev) to emphasize the matter’s procedural posture and its impact on the present petition. They submit that exemptions should not be judicially expanded beyond the Act’s provisions and that Ext.P22 should be examined in light of the controlling precedents, ensuring faithful application of law.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Sajeev A.V. (Dr.) v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector	2023 (5) KHC 245	Positive	The Court relies on this decision to support extending exemption in similar factual scenarios where contiguous plots bought by separate deeds before 31.12.2017 exceed 25 cents, informing the direction to consider Ext.P22 in light of Sajeev A.V.
Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector v Dr. A.V. Sajeev	2023 (4) KLT 331	Mentioned Only	Cited to indicate that a writ appeal against Sajeev A.V. (Dr.) Supra was dismissed; used to reflect procedural posture and not as a substantive ground for extending exemptions in the present case.

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 Philip Abraham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Kochi; Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk; Village Officer, Edappally South Village; Sub Registrar, Edappally Sub Registrar; Local Level Monitoring Committee represented by its Convenor; State of Kerala; Corporation of Kochi 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 N.NAGARESH`** ``` MONDAY, THE 21[ST] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 30TH SRAVANA, 1945 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 14103 OF 2020`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` PHILIP ABRAHAM ``` ``` AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.E.M.ABRAHAM, EDASSERIATHU HOUSE, PRAYAR, KALLISSERRY P.O., CHENGANNUR, PIN-689 124, NOW RESIDING AT PHILS EDASSERIATHU, KEEZHERIMEL, CHENGANNUR P.O., PIN-680 121, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. VARUGHESE M EASO SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FOR KOCHI, FOR KOCHI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 011.` - `2 THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR THALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 011.` - `3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE, PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 041.` - `4 THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE EDAPPALLY SUB REGISTRAR, PONEKKARA P.O., EDAPPALLY, PIN-682 041.` - `5 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR, VYTTILA KRISHIBHAVAN, VYTTILA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 019.` - `6 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.` ``` W.P.(C) No.14103 OF 2020 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` 7THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 035. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.RANJITH – SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER TO AAG SRI.S.SUDHEESH KUMAR, SC-KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY, SC-KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` W.P.(C) No.14103 OF 2020 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 21[st] day of August, 2023 Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules made thereunder. 2. The petitioner states that he owns two plots of land lying contiguously. The petitioner submitted application for changing the nature of his land in Revenue records. One of the plot is measuring more than 25 Cents whereas the other plot is less than 25 Cents. It is when a demand of fee was made from the petitioner for changing the nature of the land in the Revenue records, that the petitioner approached this Court. 3. It is not disputed that the lands are lying contiguously. The argument of the petitioner is that in the judgment in _**Sajeev A.V. (Dr.) v. Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector**_ [ _2023 (5) KHC 245_ ], this Court has held that when owner of two different plots of land, lying contiguous ``` W.P.(C) No.14103 OF 2020 ``` ``` 4 ``` but purchased through separate documents prior to 31.12.2017 and total extent of which exceeds 25 Cents seeks exemption from payment of fees, there is no provision which says that exemption cannot be claimed by the same applicant in respect of the different lands. 4. The Special Government Pleader would submit that a writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment in _**Sajeev A.V. (Dr.)**_ (Supra) and the said writ appeal was dismissed as per judgment reported as _**Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector v**_ . _**(Dr.) A.V. Sajeev** [2023 (4) KLT 331]_ . 5. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner’s claim now should be considered in the light of the judgment of this Court in _**Sajeev A.V. (Dr.)**_ (Supra) the petitioner has submitted Ext.P22 before the Revenue Divisional Officer in this regard. In the afore facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1[st] respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to consider Ext.P22 representation submitted by the petitioner in ``` W.P.(C) No.14103 OF 2020 ``` ``` 5 ``` the light of the judgment of this Court in _**Sajeev A.V. (Dr.)**_ (Supra) and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two months. It is made clear that the amounts, if any, deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the interim orders in this writ petition shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Sd/- **N.NAGARESH JUDGE** ded ``` W.P.(C) No.14103 OF 2020 ``` ``` 6 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14103/2020`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.2193 DATED 21.03.2005 OF EDAPPALLY SRO. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF TITLE DEED NO.2472 DATED 26.03.2005 OF EDAPPALLY SRO. ``` - `EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF GAZETTE NOTIFICATION DATED 24.03.2012.` - `EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.10.2019 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE.` - `EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.10.2019 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPPALLY SOUTH VILLAGE.` - `EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.RTI 99/2019 DATED 10.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.` - `EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BTR REGISTER.` - `EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12.03.2019 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF PROPERTIES VIDE SALE DEED NO.2193/05.` ``` EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12/03/2019 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF PROPERTIES VIDE SALE DEED NO. 2472/05. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD. EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT. 12/12/19 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT. 12/12/19 ALONG WITH APPLICATIONS IN FORM 6 AND CHALAN FOR RS. 1000/- IN RESPECT OF PROPERTIES VIDE SALE DEED NO. 2193/05. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P10 (A)TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT. 12.12.19 ALONG WITH APPLICANTS IN FORM 6 AND CHALAN FOR RS. 1000/- IN RESELECT OF PROPERTIES VIDE SALE DEED NO. 2472/05. EXHIBIT P11TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DT. 13/12/19 TO EXT. P10. ``` ``` W.P.(C) No.14103 OF 2020 ``` ``` 7 ``` - `EXHIBIT P11 (A) TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DT. 13/12/19 TO EXT. P10.(A).` - `EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20/06/219 IN WPC NO. 11252 OF 2019 OF THIS HONBLE COURT.` - `EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 12/02/2020 IN WPC NO. 3954/2020 OF THIS HONBLE COURT.` - `EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/02/2020 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.` - `EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. K2-634/2020 DTD. 03.06.2020 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.` - `EXHIBIT P15 (A) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. K2-857/2020 DATED 06/06/2020 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.` - `EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HONBLE COURT DATED 22/01/2020 IN WPC NO. 1756 /2020.` - `Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE CHALAN NO. KL006505956202021M DATED 18.08.2020 SUB TREASURY, CHENGANNUR.` - `Exhibit P17(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 2-857/20 DATED 06.10.2020.` - `Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 5.4.2022 IN W.P.(C) NOS. 5449 OF 2019 AND CONNECTED CASES.` - `Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER RDOCHN/634/2020K2 DATED 10-04-2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29/11/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS)` - `Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT NO 115/21826 DATED 1/12/2022 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS)` - `Exhibit P22 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17/06/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT` - `Exhibit P23 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT NO 656310/2023 DATED 20/06/2023 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT` ## **`W.P.(C) No.14103 OF 2020`** ``` Exhibit P24TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/11/2022 IN WP (C) NO 1756 OF 2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ```