High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed; Ext.P12 quashed; fourth ...

Saju Varghese and Biju Varghese v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.24319 of 2020(L)

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 allowed. Ext.P12 communication quashed. The fourth respondent is directed to re-assess the petitioners’ land covered by Ext.P9 as a dry land and to make an appropriate Basic Tax Register entry reflecting the present classification. Petitioners to submit an application for re-assessment in the prescribed form within two months from receipt of such application.
Final Disposition
Writ petition allowed; Ext.P12 quashed; fourth respondent directed to re-assess land as dry land and update Basic Tax Register; two months for re-assessment from receipt of application.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Saju Varghese
  • Biju Varghese

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by the Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram
  • The District Collector, Ernakulam
  • The Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi
  • The Tahsildar (LR), Taluk Office, Kanayannur
  • The Village Officer, Ernakulam
  • Corporation of Cochin represented by its Secretary
  • Greater Cochin Development Authority represented by its Secretary

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
  • • SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE
  • • SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM
  • • SMT.V.T.LITHA
  • • SMT.K.R.MONISHA
  • • SMT.SHRUTHI SARA JACOB

Counsels for Respondents

  • • SRI.JIBU P THOMAS
  • • SRI.VIPIN P.VARGHESE
  • • SRI.ADARSH MATHEW
  • • SMT.DHANYA T MALLAR
  • • SMT.ATHIRA ANTONY A
  • • SRI.K.J. MANURAJ GOVERNMENT PLEADER

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioners Saju Varghese and Biju Varghese hold land measuring 4.386 cents in Ernakulam Village, allotted to them by the Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) under a Town Planning Scheme, for residential use. The land is recorded in revenue records as Nilam. The petitioners sought a change of land classification from Nilam to dry land to facilitate construction and filed Ext.P10. The fourth respondent rejected Ext.P10, citing that an appeal against Ext.P11 judgment had been preferred and that permission under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wetland Act, 2008 was required for changing classification. The petitioners urged that, per State of Kerala v. Binu Mathew Chacko and others (2020) (6) KHC 717) and Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2020) (5) KLT 403, the Paddy Land Act does not apply to lands developed and allotted by government agencies under Town Planning schemes, and that permission under the Kerala Land Utilization Order may suffice. The court allowed the writ petition, holding Ext.P12 unlawful, and directed the fourth respondent to re-assess the land as dry land and to make a corresponding entry in the Basic Tax Register. The petitioners were to apply for re-assessment within two months. The decision emphasizes primacy of development schemes over Paddy Land Act constraints for such lands.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wetland Act, 2008 (Section 27A)Town Planning Act, 1108Kerala Land Utilization Order

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Permission is deemed to have been granted for such lands under the Kerala Land Utilization Order.
  • Development schemes framed under Town Planning legislation override Paddy Land Wetland Act provisions for lands allotted by governmental agencies.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that the land, acquired and developed under GCDA’s Town Planning Scheme, should be treated as a dry land for residential use and that the Paddy Land Wetland Act does not apply to such lands. They contended that the status of the land as Nilam should not bar reclassification where government-driven development schemes exist, citing decisions that limit the Act’s reach in such contexts and that permissions under the Kerala Land Utilization Order can suffice. They urged immediate re-assessment and entry in the Basic Tax Register.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that Ext.P10 required compliance with the Paddy Land Act, including Section 27A procedures, or at least a valid permission, and that Ext.P12 correctly rejected the application on the basis of an appeal against Ext.P11. They argued that changes in land use must adhere to statutory provisions and that a reassessment should be conducted only in accordance with applicable law.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Kerala and others v. Binu Mathew Chacko and others2020 (6) KHC 717PositiveDivision Bench held that the Paddy Land Wetland Act does not apply to lands acquired, developed and allotted by governmental agencies under development schemes framed under Town Planning legislation; supports petitioners’ position that such lands are exempt from Act compliance.
Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer2020 (5) KLT 403PositiveHeld that where statutory permission for change of user of land is granted for conversion of paddy land to garden land, the Land Tax Act requires a fresh assessment; used to justify re-assessment of land tax and entries in the Basic Tax Register.
Judgment in WP(C) No.24364/2019WP(C) No.24364/2019Mentioned OnlyCited as Ext.P11 judgment; the current judgment references it but does not indicate a direct ruling on similar issues within this document.

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 Saju Varghese and Biju Varghese 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA,1942** ## **WP(C).No.24319 OF 2020(L)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 SAJU VARGHESE, S/O. LATE C.V. VARGHESE, CHAZHOOR HOUSE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682036.** - **2 BIJU VARGHESE, S/O. LATE C.V. VARGHESE, CHAZHOOR HOUSE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682036.** **BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM SMT.V.T.LITHA SMT.K.R.MONISHA SMT.SHRUTHI SARA JACOB** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.** **2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM - 682028.** 2 W.P.(C) No.24319 of 2020 - **3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI - 682001.** - **4 THE TAHSILDAR(LR) TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR - 682011.** - **5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERNAKULAM - 682011.** - **6 CORPORATION OF COCHIN REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682011.** - **7 GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SAHODARAN AYYAPPAN ROAD, KADAVANTHRA, ERNAKULAM - 682020.** - **R6 BY ADV. SRI.JIBU P THOMAS R7 BY ADV. SRI.VIPIN P.VARGHESE R7 BY ADV. SRI.ADARSH MATHEW R7 BY ADV. SMT. DHANYA T MALLAR R7 BY ADV. SMT.ATHIRA ANTONY A. SRI.K.J. MANURAJ GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **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.24319 of 2020 ## **W.P.(C) No.24319 of 2020** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **J U D G M E N T** Petitioners obtained a land measuring 4.386 cents situated in Ernakulam Village as per Ext.P9 assignment deed from the Greater Cochin Development Authority (the GCDA) for residential purpose under a Town Planning Scheme sanctioned by the Government under the Town Planning Act 1108. The land obtained by the petitioners, however, is shown in the revenue records as 'Nilam'. It is alleged by the petitioners that the aforesaid wrong entry of the land in the revenue records is affecting the convenient enjoyment of the land. Since the land is one allotted to the petitioners as a dry land for construction of a residential building, the petitioners preferred an application for changing the classification of the land in the revenue records. Ext.P10 is the application preferred by the petitioners in this regard. Ext.P10 application has now been 4 W.P.(C) No.24319 of 2020 rejected by the fourth respondent stating that an appeal has been preferred against Ext.P11 judgment on the basis of which Ext.P10 application is filed and that the petitioners have to obtain permission under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act) for the purpose of seeking change of classification of the land. Ext.P12 is the communication issued in this regard by the fourth respondent. Ext.P12 is under challenge in the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader. 3. Ext.P9 title deed of the petitioners indicates that the land covered by the said document is one allotted to the petitioners by the GCDA for residential purposes in terms of a Town Planning Scheme framed under the Town Planning Act 1108. 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 W.P.(C) No.24319 of 2020 5 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 deemed to have been granted for such lands under the Kerala Land Utilization Order. In the light of the said decision of the Division Bench, the fourth respondent cannot insist compliance of the provisions of Act for considering the application submitted by the petitioner for change of classification of the land, even if the said land is shown in the revenue records as 'Nilam'. 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 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 judgment of the Division Bench, Ext.P12 order rejecting Ext.P10 application 6 W.P.(C) No.24319 of 2020 preferred by the petitioners for change of classification of the land is unsustainable in law. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P12 communication of the fourth respondent is quashed and the fourth respondent is directed to re-assess the land of the petitioners covered by Ext.P9 assignment deed as a dry land and make appropriate additional entry in the Basic Tax Register relating to the land indicating the present classification of the land. The petitioners shall submit application for re-assessment of the land in the prescribed form before the fourth respondent. The direction aforesaid shall be complied with, 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.24319 of 2020 7 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.4869/E AND RBI/93/GCDA ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO MR.C.V. VARGHESE, DATED 07.04.1993.** - **EXHIBIT P2** - **TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. 4869/E AND R/B1/93/GCDA ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO MR.C.V. VARGHESE DATED 07.05.1993.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO MR. C.V. VARGHESE DATED 27.07.1993.** - **EXHIBIT P3(a) TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO MR. C.V. VARGHESE DATED 04.09.1993.** - **EXHIBIT P3(b) TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO MR. C.V. VARGHESE DATED 10.09.1993.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.4869/E AND RBI/93/GCDA ISSUED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO MR.C.V. VARGHESE DATED 18.09.1993.** - **EXHIBIT P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT SALE DEED ATTACHED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P4.** - **EXHIBIT P5** **TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. 4869/E AND R/B1/93/GCDA ISSUED BY THE 7TH** 8 W.P.(C) No.24319 of 2020 **RESPONDENT TO MR.C.V. VARGHESE DATED 03.12.1996.** - **EXHIBIT P6** **TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF MR.C.V.VARGHESE, ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 08.06.2006.** - **EXHIBIT P7** - **TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.19180/2006 DATED 08.08.2006.** - **EXHIBIT P8** - **TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.03/07/RD ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06.01.2007.** - **EXHIBIT P9** - **TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 4506/2008 OF SRO ERNAKULAM DATED 05.11.2008.** - **EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 08.06.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P11** - **TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.24364/2019 DATED 28.10.2019.** - **EXHIBIT P12** - **TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.H3-9120/2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 04.08.2020.** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** ## **NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** ## **PA TO JUDGE**