Javad K. Hassan vs Dr.Haaris Rasheed
2021 Latest Caselaw 6148 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

     FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 30TH MAGHA,1942

       Con.Case(C).No.9 OF 2021 IN WP(C).14486/2020
  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14486/2020(I)DATED 27.07.2020 OF
                       HIGH COURT OF KERALA


PETITIONER/WRIT PETITIONER:

             JAVAD K. HASSAN,
             S/O LATE NAGOOR RAWTHER, MACKER MANZIL, THYNOTHIL
             LANE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683101.
             REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, NAGOOR
             JEHANGIR RAWTHER, AGED 62
             S/O LATE NAGOOR RAWTHER, RESIDING AT MACKER MANZIL,
             THYNOTHIL LANE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683101.

             BY ADV. SHRI.ESM.KABEER

RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION:

             DR.HAARIS RASHEED,
             (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
             PETITIONER),THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
             FORT KOCHI-682001.



             SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR, SPL.GP(REVENUE)

     THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Cont.Case (Civil) No.9 of 2021
                                          2




                         ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
                    ===========================
                      Cont.Case (Civil) No.9 of 2021
                        [arising out of judgment dated 27.07.2020
                                in W.P(C) No.14486/2020]
                    ===========================
                        Dated this the 19th day of February, 2021

                                   JUDGMENT

The aforecaptioned contempt of court case has been filed alleging

non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Annexure-A1

judgment dated 27.07.2020 in W.P(C)No.14486/2020 filed by the

petitioner herein.

2. Heard Sri.E.S.M.Kabeer, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, learned Special Government

Pleader (Revenue) appearing for the respondent.

3. Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, learned Special Government

Pleader (Revenue) submits that from the pleadings and materials on

record, it appears that the petitioner has already secured Ext.P2

proceedings dated 02.03.1996 issued by the 1st respondent-Revenue

Divisional Officer granting statutory permission for change of user of

the land for any non-agricultural purposes in respect of the subject

property, in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Cont.Case (Civil) No.9 of 2021

Land Utilization Order and that therefore, the consequential action is to

be taken under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, for fresh assessment

of the subject property, so as to make additional entries in the Basic Tax

Register to show correctly the changed nature of the land as 'garden

land/purayidam' has to be taken by the Tahsildar concerned (R2 in the

W.P(C)) and not by the RDO (R1 in the W.P(C)). Further that,

Tahsildar though a party in Annexure-A1 W.P(C), has not been made a

party in the contempt case and further that strict instructions and

directives will be given to the Tahsildar concerned to immediately

ascertain, as to whether the subject property covered by Ext.P3

application dated 25.06.2020 filed under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax

Act before the Tahsildar is the same or part of the property covered by

Ext.P2 statutory order dated 02.03.1996 passed by the RDO under Rule

6(2) of the KLU Order and that if the property covered by Ext.P3

application under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act is found to be the

same or part of the property covered by Ext.P2 order under Rule 6(2) of

the KLU Order, then strict instructions will be given to the Tahsildar to

ensure that orders are passed on Ext.P3 under Sec.6A of the Kerala

Land Tax Act, so as to effectuate additional entries in the BTR to show Cont.Case (Civil) No.9 of 2021

correctly the changed nature of the land as 'purayidam/garden land',

etc.

4. The abovesaid undertakings made on behalf of the Tahsildar

concerned are recorded. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Tahsildar

concerned will ensure that necessary orders are passed on Ext.P3

application filed under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, after

affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and as stated

hereinabove and if it is found that the property covered by Ext.P3

application filed under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, is the same

or part of the property covered by Ext.P2 statutory order passed under

Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order by the RDO, then fresh assessment of the

subject property be made, so as to make additional entries in the BTR

to show correctly the changed nature of the land as 'purayidam/garden

land' and not either as 'Nilam/paddy land' or as 'സ ഭ വ വ ത യ ന

വര തയ ഭ മ (converted land)'. Action in this regard should be duly

completed by the Tahsildar, Land Records, Aluva, who is the

2nd respondent in Annexure-A1 W.P(C) No.14486/2020, within six

weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Cont.Case (Civil) No.9 of 2021

5. The Registry will return back certified copy of Annexure-A1

in W.P(C) No.14486/2020, 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. Thereafter, if there is any non-compliance

of the abovesaid directions by the Tahsildar concerned, then the

petitioner will be at liberty to file fresh contempt of court case in the

matter.

Accordingly, recording the abovesaid submission of the

respondent-Officer, the above Cont.Case (Civil) will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

vgd Cont.Case (Civil) No.9 of 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXUREA1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/07/2020 IN WPC NO.14486/2020 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.