High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-11-05Disposed of

Reetha v. Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Fort Kochi & Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 14553 OF 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anu Sivaraman
Judgment Date: 2021-11-05
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. Tahsildar (LR), Paravur Taluk (additional 4th respondent), is directed to make necessary additional entries by alteration in the Basic Tax Register showing the nature of the property as Dry land/Garden Land/Purayidam and to take appropriate follow-up action, including reassessment, within one month of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Reetha

Respondents

Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector Fort Kochi, Ernakulam District
Tahsildar, Paravoor Taluk, N. Parur, Ernakulam
Village Officer, Alangad Village Office
Paravoor Taluk, N. Parur (Additional 4th Respondent Suo Motu Impleaded)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Binu Paul (Advocate)

Counsels for Respondents

• Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges the Revenue authorities’ treatment of 12.33 acres (12.33 Ares) of land in 34/1C, Alangad Village, North Parur Taluk, Ernakulam, classifying it as Nilam while the petitioner seeks to record it as Purayidam (garden land/dry land). The petitioner relied on directions from this Court and subsequent orders to alter the basic tax register (BTR) and reclassify the property under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU). Exhibit P3 shows an order under Clause 6(2) of the KLU; Exhibit P4 and P5 record a proactive attempt to reassess land tax and classify the property as Purayidam/Dry land/Garden land, per Court directions. The petitioner contends that the Land Tax Act, and the KLU, along with relevant judgments (Renji K Paul v. RDO; Iype Varghese v. RDO) require the property’s nature to be updated in revenue records; however, the Tahsildar (LR) allegedly retained the Nilam classification and allowed non-agricultural use by an order of 11.03.2020. The Government Pleader notes the 2nd respondent is not the proper authority to pass such orders, leading to suo motu impleading of the 4th respondent. The Court ultimately finds the impugned orders unsustainable, allowing the petition and directing the Tahsildar (LR) to amend the Basic Tax Register to reflect Dry land/Garden land/Purayidam and to take follow-up action within a month, guided by prior judgments and KLU provisions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Tax Act and the Rules made thereunderKerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU Order)Clause 6(2) of the KLU OrderVillage Manual

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that directions under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU) and orders under Clause 6(2) of the KLU should reflect the land’s altered nature in the Basic Tax Register as Purayidam/Dry land/Garden land, and that reassessment of land tax be carried out accordingly. They rely on this Court’s judgments in Renji K Paul v. RDO and Iype Varghese v. RDO, and on decisions in Fr. Jose Uppani cases, which require showing the land in BTR based on competent orders under the KLU Order. Exhibits P2–P5 show the sequence of orders and applications attempting to alter classification, with Exhibit P3 indicating a favourable order and Exhibit P5 illustrating continued non-conformity with the Court’s directions.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the 2nd respondent may not be the proper officer to pass such orders on alteration of land classification; the matter involves updating revenue records and tax entries, with reliance on existing orders, and questioned the procedural propriety of suo motu impleading the 4th respondent. The Government Pleader highlighted that the Court’s directions require proper consideration under the KLU and the Kerala Land Tax Act; the petition was to be examined in light of the cited case law and statutory provisions.

Cited Precedents (7)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Renji K Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO)	2019 (2) KLT 26	Positive	Cited and relied upon to support modifying revenue records to reflect the correct nature of land under the KLU order.
Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2020 (5) KLT 403	Positive	Cited as authority for updating BTR entries in accordance with court directions and KLU order.
Fr.Jose Uppani v. District Collector	2020(3) KLT 492	Positive	Used to justify showing land as Garden Land/Dry Land/Purayidam in BTR under competent KLU orders.
District Collector v. Fr.Jose Uppani	2020 (4) KLT 612	Positive	Division Bench endorsement supporting alteration of land classification per KLU orders.
Joseph v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2021 (5) KLT 125	Positive	Cited for principles on land classification and tax entries under KLU framework.
WP(C) No. 35072 of 2017	dated 02/11/2017	Mentioned Only	Exhibit cited to show related jurisprudence but not actively discussed in reasoning.
WP(C) No. 35071 of 2017	dated 02/11/2017	Mentioned Only	Exhibit cited as background authority; not a central part of the reasoning.

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 Reetha v. Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Fort Kochi & 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 MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1943 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 14553 OF 2021`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` REETHA AGED 66 YEARS W/O.DEVASSIA, ARANGASSERY, THOLOOR VILLAGE, PARAPPOOR, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ``` ``` BY ADV BINU PAUL ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** - `1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUB COLLECTOR FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 001.` - `2 THE TAHSILDAR, PARAVOOR TALUK, N.PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 513.` - `3 VILLAGE OFFICER ALANGAD VILLAGE OFFICE, ALANGAD P.O., PIN - 683 518. TAHSILDAR (LR)` - `4. PARAVOOR TALUK, N.PARUR, ERNAKULAM *ADDL. 4TH RESPONDENT IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER JUDGMENT DATED 05.11.2021 IN W.P.C.NO.14553/2021.` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 14553 OF 2021 ``` ``` -2- ``` ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed seeking directions to the 2[nd] respondent to make consequent corrections in the revenue records by classifying 12.33 Ares of land lying in 34/1C of Alangad Village, North Parur Taluk, Ernakulam, as ‘Purayidom’. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Exhibit P3 order under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order had been obtained by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P2 directions issued by this Court. Exhibit P4 application was preferred before the 1[st] respondent seeking alteration/additions in the basic tax register showing the nature of property as Purayidam / Dry land and for reassessment of Land Tax. The learned counsel for the ``` WP(C) NO. 14553 OF 2021 ``` ``` -3- ``` petitioner submits that the application ought to have been considered in the light of the decisions of this Court in **Renji K Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) [2019 (2) KLT 26]** and **Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer** **[2020 (5) KLT 403]** and the nature of the property, as altered, ought to have been recorded. However, it is submitted that the application was considered by the 1[st] respondent, but Exhibit P5 order dated 24.09.2020 was passed by the Tahsildar (LR) retaining the entry in the revenue records as Nilam, but adding the remark that the property is permitted to be used for other purposes by order of the RDO dated 11.03.2020 and has been granted permission on the basis of the directions of this Court for use as Garden land/ Purayidam. It is submitted that in the provisional assessment notice also the property is shown as follows: “Classification of Land:- Nilam (Remarks: As per order No. K4-859/2020 dated 11.03.2020 of Sub Collector, Fort Kochi, the land was allowed to be ``` WP(C) NO. 14553 OF 2021 ``` ``` -4- ``` utilised for non agricultural purpose, only on conditions).” 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is against the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act and the Rules made thereunder as also against the specific directions of this Court in various judgments. 5.Reliance is placed on the decisions mentioned in Exhibit P8 judgment as well as the decisions in **Fr.Jose Uppani v.District Collector [2020(3) KLT 492]** and of a Division Bench of this Court in **District Collector v. Fr.Jose Uppani [2020 (4) KLT 612]** as also in **Joseph v. Revenue Divisional Officer[2021 (5) KLT 125]** . This Court in **Fr.Jose Uppani v. District Collector** has specifically directed, after considering the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act and the Village Manual, that the property will have to be shown as Garden Land/Dry Land/ Purayidam in the BTR on ``` WP(C) NO. 14553 OF 2021 ``` ``` -5- ``` the basis of competent orders issued under the KLU Order. This Court had set aside the orders of rejection and had directed alterations by additional entries in the Basic Tax Register to show the change in nature of land as Purayidam/Dry Land/ Garden Land and to re-assess the properties accordingly. 6. The learned Government Pleader submits that orders have been issued by the Tahsildar (LR) and that the 2[nd] respondent is not the proper party to pass orders on the application. In the above view of the matter, Tahsildar (LR), Paravur Taluk, North Paravur, Ernakulam, is suo motu impleaded as additional 4[th] respondent. 7. In the light of the judgments referred to above, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders are completely unsustainable. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. There will be a direction to the Tahsildar (LR), Paravur Taluk, North Paravur, Ernakulam, the additional 4[th] respondent to make necessary additional ``` WP(C) NO. 14553 OF 2021 ``` ``` -6- ``` entries by alteration in the basic tax register showing the nature of the property as Dry land/Garden Land/Purayidam and to take appropriate follow up action in respect of the same. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. ``` Sd/- ``` ``` ANU SIVARAMAN ``` ``` JUDGE ``` uu ## **`WP(C) NO. 14553 OF 2021`** ``` -7- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14553/2021`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 27/04/2020 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. ``` - `Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.35072 OF 2017 DATED 02/11/2017.` - `Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11/03/2020.` - `Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27/05/2020.` - `Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24/09/2020.` - `Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 12/04/2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.` ``` Exhibit P7THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 13/04/2021. ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 14553 OF 2021`** ``` -8- ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14553/2021`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` - `Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 27/04/2020 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.` - `Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.35071 OF 2017 DATED 02/11/2017.` - `Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 11/03/2020.` - `Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27/05/2020.` - `Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 24/09/2020.` - `Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 12/04/2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.` ``` Exhibit P7THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 13/04/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ```