Jos Gold Traders And Jewellers ... vs Teh Tahasildar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1334 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

     WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.28887 OF 2020(I)


PETITIONER:

               JOS GOLD TRADERS AND JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,
               19/XII, KALARIKKAL BAZAR, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM-686001,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR P.A. JOSE, S/O.
               ANTONY, AGED 71 YEARS, PAYAPILLI HOUSE, PUTHANANGADI,
               THIRUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOTTAYAM-686003.

               BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN

RESPONDENTS:

       1       TEH TAHASILDAR,
               KANAYANNUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682011.

       2       THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
               MARADU VILLAGE, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM-682038.


               BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K J MANURAJ

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION         ON
13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C).No.28887 of 2020              2




                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 application before the 1 st

respondent seeking a correction of the entry in the Basic Tax Register

(BTR) pertaining to his land. In the Writ Petition, it is the case of the

petitioner that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner had already

obtained an order under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order

permitting the usage of the land for non-agricultural purposes. In the

Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that the 1 st respondent

Tahasildar is not considering his application for correction in the BTR,

inter alia, on the ground that, the Kerala Land Utilisation Order was not

obtained by the petitioner but by his predecessor in interest.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as

also the submissions made across the bar, I am of the view that the mere

fact that Ext.P2 Kerala Land Utilisation Order was obtained by the

predecessor in interest of the petitioner cannot be a reason to deny the

petitioner the benefit of the said order, which was passed essentially in

respect of the land in question. Accordingly, I direct the 1 st respondent

to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 application preferred by the

petitioner taking note of Ext.P2 order passed under the Kerala Land

Utilisation Order in favour of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner

as also the judgments of this Court, which make it clear that the entries

in the Basic Tax Register can be corrected based on the permissions

granted for utilisation of the land under the Kerala Land Utilisation

Order. The 1st respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P3

application as directed within a period of six weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. The

petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy

of this judgment before the 1st respondent for further action.

Sd/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/13.01.2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 21/08/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI VIDE ORDER NO. K-2662/03/K.DIS. DATED 05/08/2009.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 30/11/2020 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.16536/2018 DATED 25/06/2018.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE