T.V. Lakshman and Sujani Vasudevan v. Tahsildar (Land Reforms), Taluk Office, Kanayannur Taluk; 2 Tahsildars, Kanayannur Taluk; 3 Village Officer, Ernakulam Village

## _`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`_ ## _`PRESENT`_ ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. MONDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1944 ``` ## _`WP(C) NO. 2669 OF 2023`_ ## _`PETITIONERS:`_ ``` 1T.V. LAKSHMAN AGED 64 YEARS S/O. LATE T. L. VISWANATHA IYER, BALANAND BHAVAN, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER - V.V. ASOKAN S/O. V.P. VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, AGED 65 YEARS, APOORVA, SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 018, PIN - 682035 2SUJANI VASUDEVAN AGED 52 YEARS D/O. LATE T. L. VISWANATHA IYER, BALANAND BHAVAN, CHITTOOR ROAD, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER - V.V. ASOKAN S/O. V.P. VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, AGED 65 YEARS, APOORVA, SRM ROAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 018, PIN - 682035 BY ADVS. K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER S.PARVATHI 1TAHSILDAR (LAND REFORMS) TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011 2TAHSILDAR KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM HEAD POST OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011 3VILLAGE OFFICER ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM HEAD POST OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682025 BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ## _`RESPONDENTS:`_ ## _`OTHER PRESENT:`_ ``` SRI. M H HANIL KUMAR (SPL GP) ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` W.P. (C) No. 2669 of 2023 ``` ``` ..2.. ``` ## **JUDGMENT** On 21.06.1972, 2.64 ares of land comprised in Survey No. 913/11-42, Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk with Thandapper Account No. 24706, was allotted to the 1[st] petitioner and his deceased father by the Greater Cochin Development Authority (in short, G.C.D.A). On 07.07.1977, Ext.P3 sale deed was executed in the name of the 1[st] petitioner and his father. On 14.03.1978, a building permit was obtained for the construction of a residential building on the said land having a total plinth area of 3500 square feet. Following the issuance of the building permit, a residential building was constructed on the land and it was allotted Door Nos. 28/210 and 28/211 by the Kochi Corporation. The property now belongs jointly to the petitioners. When the petitioners procured revenue records in respect of the said property, it was noticed that in the Basic Tax Register, the nature of the land is still described as ‘ _Nilam_ ’. ``` W.P. (C) No. 2669 of 2023 ``` **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** 2. On 05.12.2022 the petitioners filed an application before the 1[st] respondent for correction of the basic tax register pertaining to their property. The petitioners also produced before the 1[st] respondent a confirmation certificate that showed that Plot No. 25 in Elamkulam West Town Planning SchemePhase-I was covered by the said town planning scheme prepared and published under the provisions of the erstwhile Town Planning Act. The petitioners have approached this court being aggrieved by the fact that the 1[st] respondent is still reluctant to pursue the course of correction of the basic tax register, as is required of him and the petitioners are called upon to pursue the remedy available to them under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (as amended). 3. Sri. Mayankutty Mather, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the plot in question was part of the Elamkulam West Town Planning Scheme. It is submitted that the said scheme was prepared under the ``` W.P. (C) No. 2669 of 2023 ``` **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** provisions of the erstwhile Town Planning Act and plots were allotted to various applicants by the G.C.D.A. intending the said plots to be used for residential purposes. It is submitted that after notifying an extent of property under the provisions of a Town planning Scheme and setting apart such property for residential purposes as early as in 1978 or even before, the State cannot now contend that the said property should continue as ‘ _Nilam’_ in the Basic Tax Register and correction is possible only if the petitioners resort to the mechanism provided for under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (as amended). The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also submits that the issue stands squarely covered in favour of the petitioners by the judgments of this court in _**Reliance Industries Ltd** ._ _**and others** v. the_ _**Commissioner of Land Revenue; 2007 (2) KHC 346; Shaji Chacko v. State of Kerala**_ and _**others; 2020 (6) KHC 420**_ and _**LLMC Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath and others v. Mariyumma and another; 2015 (3) KHC 19.**_ It is ``` W.P. (C) No. 2669 of 2023 ``` **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in the _**State of Kerala and others v. Binu Mathew Chacko and Others, 2020 (6) KHC 717,**_ noticing the judgments in _**Reliance Industries Ltd.**_ ( _supra_ ) and _**Shaji Chacko**_ ( _supra_ ) held as follows:- _“20. Therefore after analysing the provisions of law and the facts and figures that took place in respect of allotment of land, this Court could presume that as per the scheme, the plot in question was allotted to the predecessor in title of the petitioner as a building site and that whatever inhibition remained in the property on the date of the allotment in respect of the usage of the plot as a building was removed by the State Government and the statutory authority. That said and so understood, at the time of allotment and sale of the property it never had any adverse circumstances so as to rectify any defect in the plot to be used as a building site. At the most it could be seen that the Government / statutory authority have failed to make necessary corrections in the Basic Tax Register and the village records in respect of the tenure of the property. The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act,_ ``` W.P. (C) No. 2669 of 2023 ``` ``` ..6.. ``` _2018 was introduced only w.e.f. 12.08.2008 with the object to conserve the paddy land and wet land and to restrict the conversion or reclamation thereof, in order to promote growth in the agricultural sector and to sustain the ecological system in the State of Kerala”_ ## _xxx xxx xxx xxx_ _24. The issue is also no more res integra since it was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Reliance Industries Ltd. and Others V. The Commissioner of Land Revenue and Others (2007 (2) KHC 346: ILR 2007 (2) Ker. 193: 2007 (2) KLT 850) wherein it was held that no permission under the Kerala Land Utilization Order is necessary for any activity of construction or use of any land in the residential use zone or any other zone in the town planning scheme constituted as per the Town Planning Act, 1108. Also, recently in Shaji Chacko V. State of Kerala and Others (2020 (6) KHC 420: 2020 KHC OnLine 843) a learned Single Judge of this Court has held in unequivocal terms that if any Town Planning Scheme does not save the land and area for cultivation of any crops mentioned under the Land Utilization Order, 1967, it has to be assumed that, through the_ ``` W.P. (C) No. 2669 of 2023 ``` **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** _process of law, power of Collector to command the holder of land to cultivate crops has been taken away. Anyhow while the judgment in Reliance Industries was holding the field the Apex Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and others v. Jalaja Dileep and another (supra) taking into account the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 held that the entries made in the BTR cannot be defaced, overruling the Division Bench of this Court in revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi and others V. Jalaja Dileep and another (2014 (1) KHC 96: 2014 (1) KLT 161: ILR 2014 (1) Ker.492: 2014 (1) KLJ 586). Anyhow later a Division Bench of this Court in LLMC Kizhakkambalam V. Mariyumma (2015 (3) KHC 19: 2015 (2) KLT 516: 2015 (1) KLD 915: 2015 (2) KLJ 861) held that without defacing the original entry in the Basic Tax Register additional entry can be made with respect to the present tenure of the land in appropriate cases and in accordance with law, which is governing the field now. We are in respectful agreement with the proposition so laid down in Mariyumma, supra, in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand._ ``` W.P. (C) No. 2669 of 2023 ``` ``` ..8.. ``` _25. Taking into account all the above aspects, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants have not made out any case justifying interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge so far as the basic facts are concerned. However, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Mariyumma supra, an owner of a property has to make an application before the concerned revenue authority to make additional entry in the Basic Tax Register showing the present tenure of land. Therefore, petitioner is permitted to make a suitable application before the appropriate revenue authority to make the additional entry in the BTR and if any such application is filed along with a copy of this judgment, it shall be considered and necessary addition shall be made accordingly, at the earliest and at any rate, within a month thereafter. We further make it clear that thereafter the petitioner is at liberty to make suitable application under S.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 to make appropriate entry and collect tax accordingly. However, we make it clear that the pendency of the said applications shall not stand in the way of Kochi Corporation to consider the pending permit application taking into account the observations_ ``` W.P. (C) No. 2669 of 2023 ``` **==> picture [31 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** _made above at the earliest and at any rate within a month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.”_ 4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents very fairly admits that the issue appears to be covered in favour of the petitioners by virtue of the decisions of this court, referred to above. 5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, I am of the view that in the light of the law laid by a Division Bench of this Court in _**Binu Mathew Chacko**_ (supra), the petitioners are entitled to reliefs as prayed for in the Writ Petition. It is therefore directed that the 1[st] respondent shall take up Ext.P8 application filed by the petitioners and make an additional entry in the Basic Tax Register regarding the change of nature of the land. The 1[st] respondent shall also make necessary changes in the revenue records and ensure that basic tax is collected from the ``` W.P. (C) No. 2669 of 2023 ``` **==> picture [37 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** petitioners showing the land as ‘ _Purayidam_ ’ instead of ‘ _Nilam_ ’ without any further formality. The needful shall be done forthwith and at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. **Sd/-** **GOPINATH P. JUDGE** RMV ``` W.P. (C) No. 2669 of 2023 ``` ``` ..11.. ``` ## _`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2669/2023`_ ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER - G.O.(MS) 290/69/DD DATED 15.10.1969 SANCTIONING THE ELAMKULAM WEST TOWN PLANNING SCHEME Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE ALLOTMENT LETTER NO. TPTA1-1904/72 DATED 21.6.1972 GIVEN IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONERS Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 2320 OF 1977 DATED 07.07.1977 OF ERNAKULAM SRO Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED IN THE NAME OF THE 1ST PETITIONER FROM CORPORATION OF KOCHI DATED 14.3.1978 Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 16.08.2022 Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 8.8.2022 Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE ROR CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.11.2022 ALONG WITH ITS TYPED COPY Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 5.12.2022 Exhibit P9TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY THE SECRETARY, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM DATED 20.1.2023 Exhibit P10TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PETITIONERS' PROPERTY DATED 30.6.2017 ``` ## _`RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL`_ ## _`TRUE COPY`_ ## _`P.A.TO JUDGE`_