Kerala High Court
Mathew Augustine vs Sreejith.S on 18 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 29TH MAGHA,1942
Con.Case(C).No.1793 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 13946/2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.13946/2020(P) DATED 16.07.2020 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
MATHEW AUGUSTINE
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.AUGUSTINE, PLATHOTTATHIL,
MOONNANI, PALA.P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686575.
BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C):
SREEJITH.S
AGE & THE FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
THE TAHASILDAR(LAND RECORDS), MEENACHIL TALUK,
MINI CIVIL STATION, GROUND FLOOR,
PALA RAMAPURAM ROAD, PALA-686575.
BY SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR, SPL.GP(REVENUE)
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No.1793 OF 2020 2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-----------------------------------------
Con.Case (C).No.1793 of 2020
[arising out of judgment dated 16.07.2020
in W.P.(C) No.13946/2020]
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2021
JUDGMENT
The above contempt of court case (civil) has been filed
alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court
as per Annexure A judgment dated 16.07.2020 in W.P.(C)
No.13946 of 2020 with the following prayer:-
".................to initiate Contempt of Court Proceedings against the
respondent by summoning him before this Hon'ble Court and to
punish him for the Contempt of this Hon'ble Court committed by
him."
2. Heard Sri.Rinny Stephen Chamaparambil, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.J.
Mohammed Anzar, the learned Special Government Pleader
(Revenue) appearing for the respondent-Tahsildar (Land
Records), Meenachil Taluk, Pala (1st respondent in the writ
petition).
3. This Court had earlier passed an order dated
17.11.2020 in this Contempt of Court case, which reads as
follows:-
"Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader,
would fairly submit that the impugned Annexure-B order dated
07.10.2020, issued by the respondent-Tahsildar does not appear to be
in proper and lawful compliance of the directions issued by this Court
in Annexure-A judgment dated 16.07.2020 in W.P.(C)
No.13946/2020, filed by the petitioner, as the altered re-entry made
in the Basic Tax Register is to describe the land as ' സ ഭ വ വ ത യ ന
വരത യ പരയ ട " instead of "പരയ ട " and that strict instructions and
directives will be given to the respondent Tahsildar to immediately
recall Annexure-B order and to pass orders afresh under Section 6A of
the Kerala Land Tax Act, so as to make additional entries in the Basic
Tax Register showing correctly the changed nature of the land as
'purayidom/garden land' instead of the earlier Basic Tax Register
entries as 'nilam/paddy land', as directed in Annexure-A judgment,
which has become final and conclusive.
2. In view of the abovesaid fair stand of the learned
Senior Government Pleader, this Court is not now admitting the
contempt case and issuing the statutory summons for personal
appearance of the respondent Tahsildar at this stage and would
give a last opportunity to prove his bona fides.
List the matter at 10.15 am in 6A Court on 03.12.2020."
4. This Court had earlier passed an order dated
03.12.2020 in this Contempt of Court case, which reads as
follows:-
"Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government
Pleader submits on the basis of instructions that now the
respondent-Tahsildar has rectified the entries and has passed
revised orders correctly showing the changed nature of land as
'purayidom/garden land' instead of the earlier Basic Tax Register
entries as 'nilam/paddy land'.
2. Sri.Rinny Stephen Chamaparambil, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it may be correct
that the respondent-Tahsildar has passed such orders properly,
but the Village Officer concerned, who is also a party in Annexure-
A judgment, is taking the stand that he cannot make any further
correction and the property can be described only as ' സ ഭ വ
വ ത യ ന വരത യ പരയ ട ", etc.
3. Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government
Pleader submits that time may be granted to him to ascertain the
said aspect and if it is so, he would give strict instructions and
directives to the Village Officer concerned, who is the 2 nd
respondent in Annexure-A W.P.(C) No.13946/2020, to ensure that
the description of the property as 'purayidom' as ordered by the
Tahsildar is also carried out in the village records so as to show
the nature of the land as 'purayidom/garden land' instead of the
earlier BTR entries as 'nilam/paddy land'.
4. The respondent-Village Officer will ensure
compliance with immediate effect, failing which the Village Officer
shall be personally present before this Court on the next posting
date.
List the matter on 21.12.2020."
5. Today, when the matter is taken up for
consideration, Sri.Rinny Stephen Chamaparambil, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even
now the respondent-Village Officer has not carried out the
actual correction in the Basic Tax Register to show the changed
nature of the land as 'purayidom/garden land' on the specious
ground that as per the information fed to the computer system,
he can classify the land only either as 'converted land or as
paddy land (nilam).
6. After hearing both sides, this Court is of the
considered view that the said stand of the Village Officer is
absolutely illegal and ultravires and it is matter of common
knowledge that changed nature of the lands could be either
'garden land/purayidom' or 'paddy land/nilam' and to say that
the computer system is fed with the facility only to classify the
land either as 'converted land (സ ഭ വ വ ത യ ന വരതയ ഭമ )' or as
'paddy land (nilam)', the two species of ground which can only
be accepted by this Court.
7. Sri.K.J. Mohammed Anzar, the learned Special
Government Pleader (Revenue) would submit that the Village
Officer has no jurisdiction to overrule the considered decision
taken by the Tahsildar under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax
Act, 1961, ordering re-classification of the land as
'purayidom/garden land' and that the Village Officer is obliged
to show the nature of the land as 'purayidom/garden land' and
not as 'converted land (സ ഭ വ വ ത യ ന വരതയ ഭമ )' and that he
will give strict directions and instructions to the Village Officer
concerned to immediately take steps to ensure that the subject
property is covered by the Section 6A order of the Kerala Land
Tax Act is duly shown as 'purayidom/garden land' and to issue
Land Tax Receipt with the endorsement that the changed
nature of the land is 'purayidom/garden land', etc.
8. If the Village Officer does not comply with the
abovesaid directions, to correctly show the changed nature of
the land within a period of one month, then the petitioner will
be at liberty to file an application to reopen this Contempt of
Court (Civil) case, in which case this Court will immediately
take action against the Village Officer through contempt of
court proceedings which would totally to the risk and peril of
the Village Officer concerned.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner will
produce certified copies of this judgment before the District
Collector concerned, Tahsildar concerned and the Village
Officer concerned, for necessary information and immediate
further action.
With these observations and directions, the above
contempt of court case (civil) will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS,
JUDGE
Skk//24022021
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A ONLINE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE
JUDGMENT DATED 16/07/2020 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C)NO.13946/2020
ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE REASSESSMENT
ORDER DATED 07/10/2020 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
