P.Prabhulla vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 19889 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. 3792 OF 2019
PETITIONER/S:

          P.PRABHULLA,
          AGED 54 YEARS
          W/O V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN, ADVOCATE,
          SAI KRIPA, PONNETH TEMPLE ROAD,
          CHILAVANNOOR,
          KOCHI - 682 020.
          BY ADVS.
          PHILJO VARUGHESE PHILIPS
          SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
          SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBIAR


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 021.
    2     THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
          FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 001.
    3     VILLAGE OFFICER,
          ELAMKULAM,
          KOCHI, PIN - 682 001.
    4     ADDL.R4-STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
          REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM( ADDL.R4 IS
          IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.9.2019 IN
          IA.NO.2/2019 IN WP(C))
          SRI. S. RANJITH, SPECIAL GP 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. 3792 of 2019            -2-




                              JUDGMENT

S. Manikumar, C. J.

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

(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P7 petition by ordering necessary corrections in the Basic Tax Register maintained by the 3 rd respondent Village Officer without insisting to pay any fee as prescribed under the Kerala Paddy and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018;

(ii) to declare that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D.O. Vs. Jalaja Dileep reported in 2015 (1) KLT 98 (SC) declared the law that to the conversion taken place in the past, ie., prior to Act 28 of 2008, the above law ie., Act 28 of 2008 is not applicable and therefore the Exhibit P12 Amendment is also not equally applicable;

(iii) to declare that Exhibit P12 Amendment to the Parent Act viz., Kerala Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 is only a prospective one and can't apply in the case of the petitioner;

(iv) to declare that the demand of 30% market value from the petitioner to carry out necessary corrections in the Revenue

records shall amounts to penalizing the petitioner and unlawful enrichment of the respondents and by applying the principle of 're-tro active theory' same is not maintainable in law;

(v) to declare that Sections 27A and 27C of the Kerala Paddy and Wetland (Amendment) Act 2018 is applicable only in the case of conversion and in the case of the petitioner no conversion is required but reconstruction of an existing house and therefore, the above Amendment is not applicable;

(vi) to declare that the petitioner is seeking for a direction to carry out necessary correction in the BTR and provisions of the Kerala Paddy and Wetland Act 2008 and Kerala Paddy, Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018 and Kerala Land Utilization Order 1967 are not applicable in the case on hand because the old house exist in Sy. Nos. 615/1 and 617/1 of Elamkulam Village, Kanayannoor Taluk is a construction of the year 1978-79 after getting permission from the Corporation and therefore, petitioner is entitled for and order from the 2nd respondent directing the 3rd respondent to carry out necessary corrections in the Basic Tax Register in respect of the above survey numbers without paying any fee as prescribed under Section 27A(17) of the Kerala Paddy and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018;

(vii) to declare that the case of the petitioner is covered by the decisions of the Hon'ble Court in (1)In Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat Vs. Mariyumma reported in 2015(2) KLT 516 (DB), (2) Puthenpurackal Joseph Vs. Sub Collector reported in 2015(3) KLT 182 and (3) unreported decision in Asmabee Vs. State of Kerala and therefore without paying any fee she is

entitled for necessary correction in Basic Tax Register maintained by the 3rd respondent."

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

Varughese Philips, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that

the writ petition can be dismissed as not pressed.

Placing on record the above, writ petition is dismissed as not

pressed.

Sd/-

S. MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE Eb