Vincent Varghese vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 18261 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
         TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 16TH BHADRA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 15818 OF 2021
PETITIONER :-

              VINCENT VARGHESE, AGED 50 YEARS
              S/O.LATE E.M.VARKEY, ILAVUNKAL HOUSE, MANTHONI, POONCHOLA,
              POTTASSERY P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

              BY ADVS.
              JACOB SEBASTIAN
              K.V.WINSTON


RESPONDENTS :-

     1        THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
              OTTAPALAM, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
              OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679 101.

     2        THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR KANHIRAPUZHA
              PANCHAYAT CONSTITUTED UNDER THE CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND
              WETLAND ACT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,
              THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KANHIRAPUZHA (POTTASSERY),
              PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 591.

     3        THE TAHSILDAR,
              MANNARKKAD TALUK OFFICE, MANNARKKAD,
              PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 582.

     4        THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
              POTTASSERY I VILLAGE, MANNARKKAD TALUK,
              PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 591.

  ADDL.5      THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
              MANNARKKAD.

              ADDITIONAL 5TH RESPONDENT IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER
              ORDER DATED 7.9.2021.

              BY SMT.SURYA BINOY. B., SR. GP

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION          ON
07.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 15818 OF 2021

                                 -: 2 :-


                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 7th day of September, 2021

This writ petition is filed challenging Exp.P10 communication

issued to the Petitioner by the State Public Information Officer and

Deputy Tahsildar (LR), Mannarkkad. The learned Counsel for the

petitioner submits that the petitioner was in possession of about five

cents of land in Pottassery I village in Mannarkkad Taluk. It is

submitted that the petitioner had obtained Ext.P5 Judgment for

conversion of a portion of the property under the provisions of the

Kerala Land Utilization Order and for appropriate follow up action

once the said application is considered. It is submitted that the

application preferred by the petitioner had been rejected on the

ground that the application has to be submitted under the provisions

of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment)

Act, 2018.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the said decision had been challenged by the petitioner before

this court and by Ext.P7 judgment, this Court had held that the

provisions of the amending Act of 2018 could not be pressed into

service in a case where an application for utilization of land for other WP(C) NO. 15818 OF 2021

purposes had already been made under clause 6 of the Kerala Land

Utilization Order. The writ petition was, therefore, allowed and the

1st respondent, RDO was directed to grant the permission sought for

by the petitioner in his application without insisting on compliance of

the provisions of the amending Act.

3. It is submitted that thereafter and pursuant to a Contempt

application moved by the petitioner, Ext.P8 order dated 05.01.2021

has been rendered on the application dated 21.06.2017. The

petitioner had thereafter filed Ext.P9 application for effecting

changes in the revenue records in terms of Section 6A of the Kerala

Land Tax Act in the form provided thereunder. However, by Ext.P10

which is a reply given to the petitioner under the Right to Information

Act, the petitioner has been told that he has to make an application

under section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and

Wetland Act, 2008 in Form No.6 provided under the said statute

before the Ottapalam Sub Collector.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since

Ext.P8 order has been rendered under the Kerala Land Utilization

Order on 05.01.2021 on an application submitted by the petitioner on

21.06.2017 before Section 27A was incorporated in the Kerala WP(C) NO. 15818 OF 2021

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and since the petitioner

has made a proper application in Form A in terms of section 6A of

the Kerala Land Tax Act, the Contention in Ext.P10 that the petitioner

has to approach the Sub Collector under the provisions of Section

27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act is

completely unwarranted and that the respondents are duty bound to

take up and consider the application preferred by the petitioner as

Ext.P9.

5. The Learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P10 is

only a reply under the Right to Information Act and that the

Tahsildar has not passed orders on Ext.P9 application preferred by

the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that in view of the

decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in District Collector,

Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others [2020 (4)

KHC 394] and in Ipe Varghese v. The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Idukki and others [2020 (6) KHC 770], the application preferred by

the petitioner is liable to be considered by the Tahsildar (LR) in

accordance with law.

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that

the request of the petitioner in Ext.P9 is liable to be considered in the WP(C) NO. 15818 OF 2021

light of Ext.P8 order as well as the decisions referred to above. There

will, accordingly, be a direction to the additionally impleaded

respondent to take up, consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 application

preferred by the petitioner with specific reference to the fact that

Ext.P8 order dated 05.01.2021 has been rendered on an application

submitted on 21.06.2017 and in the light of the judgments, within a

period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. The earlier directions in Ext.P5 judgment that the

petitioner would be entitled to correction/alteration in the Basic Tax

Register is also to be taken note of while passing orders as directed

above.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

Jvt/8.9.2021 WP(C) NO. 15818 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15818/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED APRIL 16, 2014 ISSUED BY THE KANHIRAPUZHA PANCHAYAT.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED JUNE 17, 2015 IN WP(C) NO.8657/2015 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT WITH LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE ALONG WITH MEMO FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER IN WP(C) NO.27145/2016 OF THIS HONOURBALE COURT.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, KANHIRAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT IN WP(C) NO.27145/2016 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED JUNE 8, 2017 IN WP(C) NO.27145/2016 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER CLAUSE 6 OF THE KLU ORDER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED JUNE 21, 2017.

Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED OCTOBER 1, 2020 IN WP(C) NO.20571/2020 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED JANUARY 5, 2021 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED JANUARY 19, 2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE OFFICE OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED MAY 6, 2021.