Chinnamma Mathai vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 7782 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
 TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 18216 OF 2022
PETITIONERS

    1          CHINNAMMA MATHAI
               AGED 74 YEARS
               W/O MATHAI, AGED 74 YEARS MANDOLI HOUSE, NEW
               LINK ROAD, ELAMKULAM, KADAVANTHRA, PIN.682 020.
    2          PAUL MATHEW,
               AGED 43 YEARS
               S/O MATHAI, MANDOLI HOUSE, NEW LINK ROAD,
               ELAMKULAM, KADAVANTHRA, PIN.682 020.
               BY ADV T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH)


RESPONDENTS

    1          THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
               REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI. PIN.682
               001.
    2          TAHSILDAR (LR),
               KANAYANNOOR KANAYANNOOR TALUK OFFICE, KOCHI-682
               011.
    3          THE VILLAGE OFFICER
               MARADU VILLAGE OFFICE, MARADU, PIN-682304.
OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI. SYAMANTHAK, GP


        THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP    FOR
ADMISSION       ON   28.06.2022,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.18216 of 2022        :2:




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 28th day of June, 2022

The petitioners, who are holding 5.91 Ares of property

in Survey No.243/2 in Block No.13 of Maradu Village, have

approached this Court seeking to direct the 2 nd respondent to

consider Ext.P4 application and to reassess the land tax,

treating the land as dry land. The petitioners state that they

are owners in possession of 5.91 Ares of property in Maradu

Village. The property is a converted land even prior to the

year 1996.

2. The 1st respondent has issued Ext.P3 order under

Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order in the year

1996, permitting to use the land for other purposes. The

petitioners thereupon submitted Ext.P4 application before the

2nd respondent seeking reassessment of land tax. The 2 nd

respondent is bound to consider the application and take a

decision thereon within a reasonable time.

3. The Government Pleader entered appearance and

resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader denied all

the allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition. It

is, however, submitted that since Ext.P4 application is under

Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, if the said Ext.P4

application is received by the Tahsildar, the same can be

considered in accordance with law.

In view of the facts of the case, the writ petition is

disposed of directing the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar to

consider Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioner, if the

same is supported by all requisite documents and to take a

decision thereon in accordance with law, within a period of

one month, adverting to Ext.P5 judgment also.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE smm/29.06.2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18216/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 25-5-2022.

Exhibit P2 PHOTO COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE DATA BANK.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER DATED 29-4-

1996 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25-

11-2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P5 PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN IN WP(C) NO.24974/2020 DATED 16-11-2020.