Kerala High Court
Anil Abraham vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 1 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 28764 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
ANIL ABRAHAM
AGED 81 YEARS
KODINJOOR, ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689
645 REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ITTI
AVIRA SAMUEL, KODINJOOR, ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE,
THIRUVALLA, PIN- 689 645.
BY ADVS.
T.P.PRADEEP
P.K.SATHEES KUMAR
MINIKUMARY M.V.
R.K.PRASANTH
JIJO JOSEPH
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PIN - 689 101.
2 THE TAHAZILDAR (LR)
TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA - 689 101.
G.P., RIYAL DEVASSY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) No. 28764 of 2022 2
VIJU ABRAHAM , J.
===========================
WP(C) No. 28764 of 2022
============================
Dated this the 1st day of March, 2023
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has filed Ext P7 application in Form-7 which has
been considered by the authorities and petitioner was directed as
per Ext P8 communication to remit an amount of Rs. 29,05,157/-,
and the same is now under challenge in this writ petition. The
petitioner submits that he along with his wife have obtained 6.48
Ares, 10.52 Ares and 6.07 Ares of land comprising in Re Survey
No.386/5-1-5 (386/5-1-1), 386/5-1-2, 386/5-1-3 respectively of
Eraviperoor Village. Petitioner also obtained 8.9 Ares, 2.43 Ares
and 0.40 Ares of land comprising in Re survey No: 386/5-1-4,
386/8-1 and 386/8-3 respectively of Eraviperoor Village.
2. Petitioner submits that the above lands were reclaimed
about 50 years back and coconunt trees aged more than 40 years
are standing in the said land. The surrounding properties are dry
lands with buildings and K.K. road is passing through the
boundary of the land. Even though the land is described as
'Nilam' in the Basic Tax Register, it is not included in the data
bank prepared by the Eraviperoor Panchayath.
3. It is submitted by the petitioner that he has preferred an
application before the 1st respondent for getting permission under
clause 6(2) of the Land Utilisation Order, 1967 for the lands
having an extent of 6.48 Ares, 10.52 Ares and 6.07 Ares
comprising in Re Survey No. 386/5-1-5 (386/5-1-1), 386/5-1-2,
386/5-1-3 respectively of Eraviperoor Village to utilize the land for
purposes other than agricultural activities. Pursuant to a direction
issued by this Court in Ext P4 judgment, the said application was
considered and by Ext P5 order, the said application was allowed.
After obtaining permission under clause 6 of the Kerala Land
Utilisation Order, petitioner obtained Ext P6 building permit from
Eraviperoor Grama Panchayath for construction of Auditorium and
based on Ext P6 building permit, petitioner has completed
construction of the Auditorium.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a Form-7
application under Section 27 A of the Amended Act. Petitioner
submits that it is due to an inadvertent mistake that the said
application was submitted in respect of properties which were
covered by Ext P5 permission granted as per Ext P5 order. On the
basis of Ext P7 application the petitioner was directed to remit an
amount of Rs. 29,05,157/- as prescribed fee for changing the
classification of petitioner's entire property.
5. Petitioner has a specific case that the fee was
calculated at 20% of the fair value of entire land and Rs. 100 per
Sq Ft for the area above 3000 SqFt of the building. Petitioner's
contention is that Ext P7 application should be considered only in
respect of the properties other than covered by Ext P5 and that
the amount now demanded as per Ext P8 is also for the properties
included in Ext P5 and also taking into consideration the building
constructed in the said property. Petitioner contended on the
basis of the judgment of this Court in District Collector,
Ernakulam & Others Vs. Fr. Jose Uppani & Others (2020 (4)
KHC 394 (DB) that the amended provisions of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act has no application
for the applications filed/Orders secured under KLU order prior to
cut off date i.e. 30.12.2017. Since petitioner by mistake has
included in Ext P7 application, lands covered as per Ext P5,
submits that he would file a fresh application in proper form and
seeks for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the same in
accordance with law.
As the petitioner submits that he is filing a fresh application
in this regard, there will be direction to the 1 st respondent to
consider and pass appropriate orders on the same, in accordance
with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being
heard to the petitioner. Petitioner shall also be free to file written
notes of argument and produce the judgment relied on by him.
The petitioner shall submit a fresh application before the 1 st
respondent along with a copy of this judgment. The submission of
the petitioner that he is withdrawing Ext P7 application is
recorded.
With the above said observation and direction, the writ
petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sbk/-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28764/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FROM
THE VILLAGE OFFICE, ERAVIPEROOR.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERAVIPEROOR.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FROM
THE VILLAGE OFFICE, ERAVIPEROOR.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
08/01/2015 IN WP(C) 547/2015.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 06/03/2015 BEARING
NO.A3-153/15.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED
20/04/2018 ISSUED FROM THE ERAVIPEROOR
GRAMA PANCHAYAT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-7 APPLICATION
DATED 30/09/2019.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT BEARING NO.A3 4200/19.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM A
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED
26/08/2022.
