Varghese Chacko vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 19867 Ker

                              -1-

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
                                &
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
   THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA, 1943
                    WP(C) NO. 19115 OF 2020
PETITIONER/S:

          VARGHESE CHACKO
          AGED 64 YEARS
          S/O. LATE A.M.VARGHESE, ACHANARIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.
          3742. LAKE VIEW, CHILAVANNOOR ROAD, KADAVANTHRA P.O,
          ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682020.
          BY ADVS.
          C.S.MANU
          SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ
          SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD
          SRI.C.A.ANUPAMAN
          SMT.MANJU E.R.
          VIJAYAKUMAR C.Y.
          ANANDHU SATHEESH


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
          KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.
    2     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030.
    3     THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
          FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001.
    4     THE TAHSILDAR
          KANAYANNUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN -
          682011.
          S. RANJITH, SPECIAL G.P. FOR RESPONDENTS
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No. 19115 of 2020           -2-




                             JUDGMENT

S. Manikumar, C. J.

Instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

(i) Issue of writ of declaration or any appropriate writ order or direction, declaring that Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008) is unconstitutional, being violative of Section-6 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (Act 10 of 1955) and Clause-6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 and Clause-6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 shall prevail over Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008), in the State of Kerala and to the extent of the repugnancy Section 27A is void, as per Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India and strike down the same accordingly as unconstitutional.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to consider Exhibit P-8 application and pass orders therein granting permission under Clause-6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 for utilization of land covered by Exhibit P-1 and P-2 documents for other purposes including construction of

residential buildings and further directing the 4th respondent to pass consequential orders for entering the particulars of the land covered by Exts.P-1 and P-2 under Kerala Land Tax, 1961 in the basic tax register and to fix the rate of basic tax under Section-6 of the said act and to assess the land for basic tax in terms of such permission granted by the 3rd respondent under Clause-6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 for utilization of the land for other purposes other than construction of residential buildings.

(iii) Issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that Ext.P-10 application preferred by the petitioner before respondent No.3 is liable to be considered only under the provisions of Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 and consequential orders shall be passed by the 4 th respondent on the Ext.P-10 application submitted to him under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 for fixation of rate of basic tax and for assessment of the land for basic tax and to enter the particulars of the land including its nature in the Basic Tax Register maintained under Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972 de hors the provisions of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Wet Land and Paddy Land Act, 2008.

2. On this day, when the matter came up for hearing, Mr.

Midhun M. Suresh, learned counsel representing learned counsel for

the petitioner, submitted that the writ petition can be dismissed as

infructuous.

Placing on record the above, writ petition is dismissed as

infructuous.

Sd/-

S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE Eb

///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE