Saj Jacob vs Anil Oommen
2021 Latest Caselaw 13629 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                     PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
      THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943
                        CON.CASE(C) NO. 561 OF 2021
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.08.2020 IN WP(C) 15365/2020 OF HIGH
                              COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P(C):

             SAJ JACOB,
             AGED 57 YEARS
             S/O.CHACKO, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, KOLANI P.O., CHUNKOM,
             THODUPUZHA-685608.

             BY ADV RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL



RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P(C):

             ANIL OOMMEN,
             AGE AND THE FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
             THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU
             P.O., IDUKKI-685603.




             SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER




     THIS    CONTEMPT   OF   COURT    CASE     (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 Cont.Case (Civil) No.561 of 2021
           in
W.P(C) No.15365 of 2020
                                        2


                      ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
                 ===========================
                  Cont.Case (Civil) No.561 of 2021
                         [arising out of the judgment dated
                       12.08.2020 in W.P(C) No.15365/2020]
                 ===========================
                       Dated this the 01st day of July, 2021

                                   JUDGMENT

Today when the matter has been taken up for consideration,

Sri.Rinny Stephen Chamaparampil, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner would submit on the basis of instructions that it is reliably

learnt that subsequently the respondent-RDO has allowed the claim of

the petitioner under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, as the

same was filed before the cut-off date and further that, even now, further

action has not been taken by the Tahsildar concerned for re-assessment

of the subject under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act for alteration in

the BTR to show correctly the changed nature of the land, etc.

2. Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader

would submit that if, infact the respondent-RDO has already allowed the

claim under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order, then strict instructions and

directions will be given to ensure that the papers are forwarded by the

respondent-RDO to the Tahsildar concerned to ensure that the Tahsildar Cont.Case (Civil) No.561 of 2021 in W.P(C) No.15365 of 2020

will pass orders of re-assessment of the subject property under Sec.6A of

the Kerala Land Tax Act to show the changed nature of the land as 'ന ല '

and not as "സ ഭ വ വ ത യ ന വര തയ ഭ മ " .

3. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Tahsildar concerned will

pass necessary orders in the matter of alteration in the BTR on the basis

of the proceedings of the RDO passed under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order,

without any further delay, at any rate, within one month from the date of

receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

With these observations and directions, the above contempt of

court case will stand disposed of.

Sd/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

vgd Cont.Case (Civil) No.561 of 2021 in W.P(C) No.15365 of 2020

APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 561/2021

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE

ANNEXURE A ONLINE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.08.2020 OF THIS COURT IN W.P(C)NO.15365/2020.

ANNEXURE B A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD WHEREBY ANNEXURE A WAS SERVED ON THE RESPONDENT.