Kerala High Court
Vijayagopalan N.M vs Kaverikutty P on 18 February, 2021
C.O.(C) No.2133 of 2020
1
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.2133 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 4726/2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4726/2020(M) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DATED 19.02.2020
PETITIONERS:
1 VIJAYAGOPALAN N.M.
AGED 79 YEARS
S/O. MEENAKSHI AMMA,
MINEERAKANDATHU HOUSE,
KALLUPARAMBIL, VALLANGHI VILLAGE,
CHITTOOR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 678 508
2 KOMALAM AMMA,
AGED 69 YEARS
W/O. VIJAYAGOPALAN N.M,
MINEERAKANDATHU HOUSE,
KALLUPARAMBIL, VALLANGHI VILLAGE,
CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN 678 508
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.S.MANU
SRI.C.A.ANUPAMAN
SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD
SRI.C.Y.VIJAY KUMAR
SMT.MANJU E.R.
RESPONDENT:
KAVERIKUTTY P
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD, PIN 678 001
(AGE AND FATHERS NAME OF THE RESPONDENT IS NOT
KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS)
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:
C.O.(C) No.2133 of 2020
2
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
==================================
C.O.(C) No.2133 of 2020
(arising out of the judgment dated 19.02.2020 in W.P.(C).No.4726 of 2020)
==================================
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2021
JUDGMENT
The aforecaptioned Cont.Case (Civil) has been filed alleging
non- compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Annexure A2
judgment dated 19.02.2020 in W.P.(C)No.4726 of 2020 filed by the
petitioners herein.
2. Heard Sri.C.S.Manu, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and Sri.K.J.Mohammad Anzar, the learned Special
Government Pleader (Revenue) appearing for the respondent.
3. The order dated 22.12.2020 passed by this Court reads as
follows:
"Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader
would fairly submit that the issuance of Annexure A-3 order
dated 18-11-2020, issued by the respondent-Revenue
Divisional Officer, Palakkad, cannot be said to be proper and
lawful compliance of the directions issued by this Court in
Annexure A-2 judgment dated 19.02.2020 in W.P.(C)
No.4726/2020, filed by the petitioner herein and that he
would give instructions and directives to the respondent-
Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad, to immediately recall
Annexure A-3 order dated 18.11.2020 and pass fresh orders in
strict and faithful compliance of the directions issued by this
Court in Annexure A-2 judgment, without any further delay
and that time by 3 weeks, in that regard, may be granted.
2. Annexure A-2 judgment has been rendered by
this Court as early as on 19.02.2020 and the time limit of its
compliance has expired long ago.
3. If the respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer
C.O.(C) No.2133 of 2020
does not immediately make amends and does not withdraw
from her contumacious conduct, then this Court will be
constrained to take a serious view in the matter, in which case
this Court may also impose personal cost to be paid by the
respondent officer and in that contingency not even a single
paise thereof could be appropriated from the public, etc. and
the entire amounts in that regard shall be borne by the
individual respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer concerned.
4. The matter to be complied with in this case with
a very simple affair. There is no dispute that the application
under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order has been filed by the
petitioner before the cut off date of 30.12.2017. The
parameters to be ascertained are very simple and straight
forward which can be easily effectuated on the basis of a field
inspection, with prior notice to the petitioner. If the
respondent officer continues with her contumacious conduct,
then it is made clear that she may do so but it will be at her
own risk.
5. A mere reading of Annexure A-3 order would
make it clear like daylight that a ground of rejection cited by
the respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer is that the
application under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order has been
preferred by the petitioner not in the prescribed format but in
a petition in writing. There cannot be no greater arbitrary
ground of rejection than this. It is well known to everyone that
there is no prescribed format in submitting application under
Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order. The prescribed format is
applicable only in the case of applications to be filed under
Sec.27(A)(1) of the State Act 28 of 2008, in which case the
application for change of user of land will be either in Form 6
or Form 7 depending upon the extent of the area concerned.
Hence, it is not as if, the respondent officer, who is a high
ranking revenue official in the cadre of Revenue Divisional
Officer does not know these elementary aspects and the court
cannot presume that the respondent officer has taken the said
stand out of ignorance. The inevitable conclusion is that the
respondent officer has deliberately again attempted to insist
that the application should necessarily be filed by the
petitioner either in Form 6 or Form 7 under Sec.27A(1) of the
State Act 28 of 2008 so as to force the petitioner to pay
amounts as conceived under Sec.27A(3) read with Rule 12(9)
or Rule 12(17) as against may be, etc.
6. Yet another interesting but unlawful ground of
rejection cited by the respondent officer in Annexure A-3 (as
can be seen from the last paragraph thereof) is that the
statutory change of user of land can be effectuated only on the
basis of consideration and passing of order under Sec.27A of
State Act 28 of 2008, etc. The abovesaid stand of the
respondent officer is nothing but highly contumacious,
flagrant violation and derogation of the legal position well
settled by this Court in a series of rulings as in Renji K.Paul
v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2019 (2) KLT 262 (DB)]
Thasildar, Thodupuzha Taluk and another v. Renjith
C.O.(C) No.2133 of 2020
George [2020 (1) KHC 865 (DB)], District Collector v. Fr.
Jose Uppani [2020 (4) KLT 612 (DB)], and the last of the
aforesaid Division Bench judgment has been also affirmed by
the District Cell of SLP (C) No.11853 of 2020, order dated
26.10.2020, filed by the State.
7. Therefore, it is for the respondent officer to
prove her bona-fides that she was not acting contumaciously,
and for that a last chance is given to him to pass orders in
proper and faithful compliance of the directions issued by this
Court in Annexure A-2 judgment.
8. It is also by now well settled in a series of rulings
as in cases Sealand builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Revenue
Divisional Officer [2020 (5) KLT 56], that the provision
contained in Rule 12(17) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wetland Rules is ultravires, the parent provision
contained in Sec.27A(13) of State Act 28 of 2008 and
therefore, in a case like this, there is no question of the
respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer in insisting that a
claimant like the petitioner should pay the amounts as
conceived either under Sec.27A(3) read with Rule 12(9) or
even in terms of Rule 12(17) of the said Rules.
9. The respondent officer is given last chance to
comply with the directions in Annexure A-1 judgment. Further
the respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer will also personally
swear to an affidavit as to why she has taken the abovesaid
stand in Annexure A-3 order dated 18.11.2020, which is in
broadly similar to the stand taken in the first order dated
18.12.2019 (Annexure A-1). Further, Annexure A-1 order
dated 18.12.2019 was quashed by this Court as illegal and
ultravires as per the instant Annexure A-2 judgment. The
respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer should explain to this
Court as to why she has repeated the very same stand in
Annexure A-3 order and as to whether she has not understood
and comprehended the reasoning and the concluded binding
directions and orders passed by this Court in Annexure A-2
judgment.
10. If the explanation of the respondent-Revenue
Divisional Officer is not adequate and reasonable, then this
Court will then take appropriate decision on the abovesaid
conduct of the respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer. The
respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer shall be personally
present before this Court on the next posting date.
11. Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior
Government Pleader will ascertain as to the details of the
officer who has passed the Annexure A-3 order and as to the
service particulars of that officer.
12. The Secretary to the office of the Advocate
General will forward copies of this order to the respondent-
Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad, as well as to the Chief
Secretary to Government of Kerala and the Principal Secretary
to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, for necessary information.
List the case at 10.15 am. In Court 6A on 14.01.2021."
C.O.(C) No.2133 of 2020
4. The order dated 19.01.2021 passed by this court reads as
follows:-
"Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, learned Special Government
Pleader (Revenue) submits on the basis of instructions that the
respondent officer has now, though belatedly, has complied with
the directions and orders passed by this Court in Anx.A2 judgment
dated 19.2.2020 in WP(C) No.4726/2020 and has issued
proceedings dated 29.12.2020 in that regard, which has been
produced along with a memo dated 12.1.2021 filed by the Special
Government Pleader (Revenue). However, the strange fact of the
matter is that, even now the respondent officer has not even cared
to file an affidavit before this Court tendering unconditional
apology for the contumacious stand taken by her in blatantly
violating the directions and orders passed by this Court in Anx.A2
judgment, etc. The said stand of the respondent officer cannot be
countenanced in any view of the matter.
2. The respondent officer shall be personally present
before this Court on the next posting date. It is for the respondent
officer to use her discretion and good sense to file an affidavit in the
matter, which may be considered by this Court later, and if any such
affidavit is to be filed, then the same shall be filed atleast one week
before the next posting date, and in the said affidavit the previous
orders passed by the respondent RDO shall also be annexed for the
perusal of this Court.
3. The respondent officer shall also show cause as to
why this Court shall not impose exemplary cost, and if so imposed,
the same shall be paid from her personal funds and not even a
single paisa could be realised from the public exchequer in that
regard.
List the case on 8.2.2021."
5. Today when the matter has been taken up for
consideration, Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, the Special Government
Pleader (Revenue) would submit on the basis of the instructions that
the respondent-RevenueDivisional Officer has already recalled
Annexure A3 order and has passed revised order under Section 6A of
the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, ordering the grant of the benefit of the
statutory permission under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization
Order in respect of the subject property of the petitioners .
C.O.(C) No.2133 of 2020
6. However, Sri.C.S.Manu, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners would submit that even now, the respondent-Revenue
Divisional Officer has passed a direction to unnecessary and
unlawfully harm the petitioners by putting a rider in the revised
proceedings dated 29.12.2020 stating that the said permission granted
under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order will not enable the petitioners
seeking for a correction of the BTR to show the changed nature of the
land as 'പരയട /garden land', as there are no provisions in that regard.
That be so, the said condition imposed by the respondent-Revenue
Divisional Officer would be blatantly illegal and shows her extreme
ignorance of the basic provisions contained under Section 6A of the
Kerala Land Tax Act, which explicitly authorizes the Thahasildar
concerned to fresh assessment of the property concerned, so as to
making of additional entries in the BTR to show correctly the changed
nature of land as 'പരയട /garden land' and not as 'നല /paddy land. See
LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath v. Mariumma
[2015(2) KLT 516]. The respondent-RDO is given one weeks time as
last chance to pass revised orders so as to delete condition No.5 in
proceedings dated 29.12.2020. In case the respondent-Thahsildar does
not comply the abovesaid direction, then the petitioners will be at
liberty to file an application to reopen the present contempt case, in
which case this Court will be inclined to take strict action against the
C.O.(C) No.2133 of 2020
respondent officer and will also be inclined to order that he should pay
cost of not less than Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand)
personally for her funds to the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners
will also be at liberty to file the requisite application under Section 6A
of the Kerala Land Tax Act before the Thahsildar concerned seeking
for orders for securing additional entries in the BTR to correctly show
the changed nature of the land as 'പരയട /garden land' instead of
previous entries as 'നല /paddy land' and on receipt of such application
the Thahsildar concerned will ensure that necessary orders under
Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act is passed so as to cause the
property to fresh assessment, in respect of the subject property which
is covered by the abovesaid proceedings dated 29.12.2020, thereafter,
the Village Officer will also make necessary corrections in the BTR to
show correctly the changed nature of the land as 'പരയട /garden land'
not either as 'നല /paddy land' or as 'സസ്വഭഭാവ വവ്യതതിയഭാനനം വരുതതിയ ഭൂമതി
(converted land)'. On production of a copy of the judgment the
Thahsildar concerned and the Village Officer concerned will also
immediately comply with the directions hereinabove and production
the judgment along with requisite application, the Thahsildar
concerned will comply with the abovesaid direction within one month
from the date of receipt of copy of this application under Section 6A of
C.O.(C) No.2133 of 2020
the Kerala Land Tax Act and therefore, the Village Officer will comply
with the abovesaid directions within two weeks' thereafter, will also
issue necessary land tax receipt to the petitioners showing correctly
the changed nature of land as 'പരയട /garden land' not either as
'നല /paddy land' or as 'സസ്വഭഭാവ വവ്യതതിയഭാനനം വരുതതിയ ഭൂമതി (converted land)'
etc.
7. The Registry will return back certified copy of Annexure A2
in WP(C)N0.7218 of 2020, if a request in that regard is made by the
petitioner's counsel. However, the Registry will ensure that photocopy
of the said document is placed in the original case file, for the purpose
of maintenance of records. The learned Special Government Pleader
will ensure that copies of the judgment are immediately forwarded to
the RDO concerned, Village Officer concerned and the Thahsildar
concerned, for necessary information and immediate compliance
With these observations and directions, the above
Cont.Case(Civil) will stand disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
dlk/20.02.2021
C.O.(C) No.2133 of 2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A-1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.J-1189/19 DATED 18-12-
2019 ISSUED BY THE RDO, PALAKKAD TO THE
PETITIONERS.
ANNEXURE A-2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19-2-2020
IN W.P(C) NO. 4726 OF 2020 PASSED BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE A-3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. J-1189/19 DATED
18-11-2020 ISSUED BY THE RDO, PALAKKAD TO THE
PETITIONERS.
