Saritha Soman v. The District Collector, Ernakulam District and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN** **THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/28TH ASWINA, 1938** **WA.NO. 982 OF 2016 () IN WP(C).34864/2015 ------------------------------------------AGAINST JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 34864/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 25-02-2016** ## **APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:** **-----------------------** **SARITHA SOMAN AGED 38, W/O. SAJI, RESIDING AT ANTHIKKADU HOUSE, CHIRAKKAKOM, VARAPUZHA P.O.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:** **--------------------------** ## **1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR** **ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682 030.** ## **2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER** **FORT KOCHI - 682 014.** ## **3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR** **PARAVUR TALUK, PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 513.** **4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER ELOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 513.** **BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI M.A. ASIF** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.10.2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **VSV/** ## **MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, C.J. & SATHISH NINAN, J.** **=================================== W.A. No.982 of 2016 =================================== Dated this the 20[th] day of October, 2016** **J U D G M E N T** ## **SATHISH NINAN, J.** The Writ Appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P(C) No.34864 of 2015 challenging the judgment dated 25.02.2016 rendered therein by the learned single Judge. The Writ Petition was filed being aggrieved by the proceedings of the respondents whereby the entry regarding nature of the land as noted in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) in respect of petitioner's property was corrected as “Nilam”, in the place of converted land. 2. According to the petitioner an extent of ## **W.A. No.982 of 2016** -: 2 :- 22.01 Ares of land in Sy.No.185/8 of Eloor Village which belongs to him as per document No.1578 of 2010 of the SRO, Alangad was lying as a converted land even prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conversion of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008) (for short, “the 2008 Act”) **.** Since the nature of the land was noted in the BTR as “Nilam”, petitioner had approached this Court in W.P(C) No.5756 of 2012 wherein Ext.P1 judgment was rendered permitting the petitioner to approach the Tahsildar to correct the entry in the BTR as “converted land” in the place of “Nilam”. The said Judgment was rendered essentially relying upon the judgment in **Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer** (2012 [3] KLT 333). Pursuant to Ext.P1 judgment, the Additional Tahsildar, Paravur passed Ext.P3 ## **W.A. No.982 of 2016** -: 3 :- order dated 12.03.2013 according sanction to effect change in the classification of the land in question as “Nikathu Purayidom” (converted land) in the place of “Nilam”. However, the judgment in **Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer** (supra) was subsequently reversed by the Apex Court as per the judgment reported in **Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and Others v. Jalaja Dileep and Another** (2015 [2] KHC 109 (SC). Pursuant thereto, the Revenue Divisional Officer directed that the correction made in the BTR regarding the nature of the land pursuant to Ext.P1 Judgment in W.P(C) No.5756 of 2012 be cancelled. Accordingly, the correction effected in the BTR with regard to the nature of the land from “Nilam” to converted land was cancelled and it was reverted as ## **W.A. No.982 of 2016** -: 4 :- “Nilam”. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said course of action adopted by the respondents. 3. The Learned single Judge as per the impugned judgment upheld the corrections made by the Tahsildar in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in **Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and Others v. Jalaja Dileep and Another** (supra). The challenge against the decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer was negatived. However, the learned single Judge proceeded to grant substantive relief in favour of the petitioner, directing the District Collector that if the petitioner approaches him with an application under Section 3A of the 2008 Act, the District Collector shall grant permission within a period of one month on ## **W.A. No.982 of 2016** -: 5 :- payment of the requisite fee as stipulated in the said section. 4. The Judgment of the learned single Judge is challenged mainly on the ground that Ext.P3 order correcting the entry in the BTR was made pursuant to the judgment in W.P(C) No.5756 of 2012, that the said judgment has become final; that, though the basic judgment relied on therein, namely, the judgment in **Jalaja Dileep v. Revenue Divisional Officer** (supra) was reversed by the Apex Court, the _inter parte_ judgment passed in W.P(C) No.5756 of 2012 has become final and therefore, it was not proper on the part of the respondents to have reopened the issue that has become final. 5. It is true that the judgment in W.P(C) No.5756 of 2012 has become final. As per the ## **W.A. No.982 of 2016** -: 6 :- said judgment, the Tahsildar was directed to consider the application to be filed by the petitioner for correction in the BTR. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P3 order was passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Paravur according sanction for change in the classification of the land. But it was specified in Exhibit P3 order that the change is being effected subject to the final decision in the appeal petitions in similar cases pending before the Full Bench of this Court. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no proceedings were pending before the Full Bench of this Court and hence the said statement is wrong. Whether proceedings were pending before the Full Bench of this Court or not, it was made clear in Ext.P3 order that change in the classification ## **W.A. No.982 of 2016** -: 7 :- of land is being made referring to Ext.P1 judgment but subject to the final outcome in the connected cases. Therefore, the course of finality as pleaded by the petitioner pales to insignificance. Exhibit P3 order was not challenged by the appellant. Further, in the nature of the relief as granted by the learned single Judge in favour of the petitioner, we do not think that the issue needs to be gone into any further. The District Collector has been directed to grant permission to the petitioner on an application to be made by him in terms of Section 3A of the 2008 Act. Matters being so, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. 6. We make it clear that upon such permission being granted to the petitioner in ## **W.A. No.982 of 2016** -: 8 :- terms of Section 3A of the 2008 Act, he will be entitled to approach the authorities under the Kerala Land Tax Act in terms of Section 6A of the said Act for fresh assessment in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in the judgment reported in **Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma** (2015 [2] KLT 516). Subject to the above observations, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- **MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR,** **CHIEF JUSTICE.** Sd/- **SATHISH NINAN, JUDGE.** vsv /true copy/ P.S. tPo Judge