Ramakrishnan T vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 15488 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
     FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2021/1ST SRAVANA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 20586 OF 2020
PETITIONER:

         RAMAKRISHNAN T., AGED 62 YEARS,
         S/O.PARAMESWARAN, THOTTIYIL,
         KUTTIKADU, PONNANI, MALAPPURAM-679 577.

         BY ADVS.
         M.R.JAYALATHA
         SMT.K.VINAYA
RESPONDENTS:

    1    STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
         DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
         GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

    2    REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
         MINI CIVIL STATION, THRIKANDIYOOR ROAD,
         TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 101.

    3    THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
         REP. BY ITS CONVENER AND AGRICULTURE OFFICER,
         KRISHI BHAVAN, KALADY P.O., KADANCHERRY,
         MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 582.

    4    AGRICULTURE OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,
         KALADY P.O., KADANCHERRY,
         MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 582.

    5    THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALADY P.O.,
         KADANCHERRY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 582.

         BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANU RAJ
         SRI.K.DILIP, ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.20586/2020

                                 2



                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2021

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to

set aside Ext.P15 and to command the 2 nd respondent to

reconsider and pass fresh orders on Exts.P4 and P6

applications after affording an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner. The petitioner has also sought direction to the 3 rd

respondent to reassess the land tax under Section 6A of the

Kerala Land Tax Act.

2. The petitioner states that he purchased 49.77

Ares of land in Kalady Village of Ponnani Taluk in

Malappuram District in the year 2004. The property is a dry

land. There are about 50 year old coconut trees in the

property. Adjacent property is also a converted land.

However, the property was described as paddy land in

revenue records. In the Data Bank, the land was described

as paddy land converted 16 years ago.

WP(C) No.20586/2020

3. The petitioner therefore submitted Ext.P4 and P6

applications before the Revenue Divisional Officer for

change of nature of the land in revenue records and also for

removing the property from the Data Bank. The Revenue

Divisional Officer however rejected the request as per

Ext.P7. This Court by Ext.P11 order set aside the Ext.P7

order and directed the 2nd respondent to reconsider the

issue. To the surprise and predicament of the petitioner, the

2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer has now passed

Ext.P15 order again rejecting the request of the petitioner.

4. According to the petitioner, the Revenue

Divisional Officer while passing Ext.P15 order has not

considered the KSREC report which would show that the

land was under vegetation/plantation towards north and a

building at north west side. The southern part is under

scattered plantation in 2004, 2008, 2010 and 2020 as per

the imageries, with more buildings. The petitioner would WP(C) No.20586/2020

further contend that as per Ext.P7 order passed by the

Revenue Divisional Officer earlier, there were 25 year old

trees standing in the land which is an indication to show that

the land was converted much before 2008.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also

pointed out that in the Commission Report submitted by the

Advocate Commissioner it has been stated that there are

old coconut trees standing in the property in question.

Furthermore, in the Data Bank, it is admitted position that

the land was converted 16 years ago. When the

overwhelming evidence would show that the land is not

falling under the description of paddy land when the Kerala

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 came

into force, the Revenue Divisional Officer was not justified in

rejecting the claim of the petitioner as per Ext.P15 order.

6. The 2nd respondent contested the writ petition

filing counter affidavit. The 2nd respondent pointed out that WP(C) No.20586/2020

after the hearing conducted in the matter, the Agricultural

Officer informed to sustain the land in Data Bank. The

Revenue Divisional Officer directed the petitioner to obtain

report from KSREC. The report was submitted on

17.06.2020. According to the learned Government Pleader,

the observations in KSREC report would indicate that as

per the toposheet of 1967, the plot was observed as paddy

land. The counter affidavit states that the land was not

converted prior to 2008 and the land was wetland like

nature and if any conversion of nature of land is made now,

there is a chance of flood in the nearby areas.

6. The learned Government Pleader further urged

that it is based on the recommendations, reports, records

and by site inspection, that the 2nd respondent has rejected

the application of the petitioner. The petitioner was granted

an opportunity of hearing. The site inspection and the

KSREC report revealed that there is no change of nature of WP(C) No.20586/2020

the land except for a few coconut palms planted in heaps.

The writ petition is therefore liable to be rejected, contended

the Government Pleader.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the

respondents.

8. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents

would indicate that the authorities had required the

petitioner to submit KSREC report to establish the case of

the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly took necessary

steps and Ext.P13 report was obtained from KSREC. The

said operative portion of Ext.P13 report reads as follows:

"The analysis has been carried out from all vailable data sets of toposheet (1967) and different satellite data sets (2004, 2008, 2010 and 2020 for survey number.

As per the toposheet of 1967, the plot 96/3 was observed as paddy. The survey plot 96/3 was observed under vegetation/plantations towards north and a building at north west side, southern part is under scattered plantation in the years 2004, 2008, 2010 and 2020 imageries with more buildings."

WP(C) No.20586/2020

From Ext.P13, it is evident that the land in question was a

scattered plantation in the year 2004 also.

9. A perusal of Ext.P15 impugned order would show

that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not adverted to the

KSREC report at all. In that view of the matter, this Court is

of the considered view that the Revenue Divisional Officer

shall reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner

taking into account Ext.P13 KSREC report also.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of

directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider the application

filed by the petitioner in the light of Ext.P13 KSREC report.

To enable the 2nd respondent to consider the issue afresh

independently, Ext.P15 is set aside. The 2 nd respondent

shall pass final order in this regard within a period of six

weeks.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE ncd/23.07.2021 WP(C) No.20586/2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20586/2020

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 26.04.2019.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 08.02.2018.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22.02.2019 IN FORM NO.7.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 15.05.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18.09.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P7        A   TRUE   COPY  OF   THE   ORDER   DATED
                  08.01.2020    OF    REVENUE    DIVISIONAL
                  OFFICER.

EXHIBIT P8        A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ISSUED BY THE
                  VILLAGE OFFICER.

EXHIBIT P9        A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO
                  UNNIKUNJAN DATED 05.11.2012.

EXHIBIT P10       A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING

THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OF UNNIKUNJAN.

EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.3864 OF 2020 DATED 12.02.2020. WP(C) No.20586/2020

EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 14.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTER DATED 04.06.2020.

EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.08.2020 IN CCC NO.1171/2020.

EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUR DATED 14.09.2020.

EXHIBIT P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MATHER NAGAR RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION V. DISTRICT COLLECTOR 2020(2) KLT 192.