Chinnamma Thomas vs The District Collector
2023 Latest Caselaw 3183 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
         THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1945
                          WP(C) NO. 7819 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

              CHINNAMMA THOMAS
              AGED 91 YEARS, D/O.LATE M.C THOMMAN
              MELETHU HOUSE, MEMURY, PAMPAKUDA POST, ERNAKULAM,
              PIN - 686667

              BY ADVS.
              GEEVARGHESE MATHEW
              VINU CHAND


RESPONDENTS:
     1     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD,
           ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
     2        THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
              THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM,
              PIN - 686669
     3        THE VILLAGE OFFICER
              THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MEMURY VILLAGE, PAMPAKUDA,
              ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686667
     4        THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
              THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, PAMPAKUDA ,
              ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686667
     5        THE SECRETARY
              THE SECRETARY, PAMPAKUDA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PAMPAKUDA,
              ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686667
              BY ADV JIBU P THOMAS

              SRI.APPU.P.S-GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 7819 OF 2023                   2




                                    JUDGMENT

Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2023

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P8 demand notice and

seeking consideration of Ext.P5 application without insisting on

payment of fees.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the respondent.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the petitioner is a widow aged 91 years who had 10.32 Ares of

property in her possession in Sy No.925/1-1-3 of Block No.1 of

Memury Village, Muvattupuzha Taluk. It is submitted that a portion of

the property had been acquired by the Panchayat for the widening of

the road in front of the property. The remaining property of the

petitioner is measured 9.82 Ares. The petitioner submitted an

application under Form 6 for permission to use the said property for

other purposes after removal of the property from the data bank. It

is stated that Ext.P8 notice has been issued to the petitioner

demanding an amount of Rs.1,76,400/- as fee. The learned counsel

for the petitioner submits that Ext.P6 report submitted by the Village

Officer specifically states that the extent of the property of the

petitioner is 9.82 Ares after acquisition for the road by the Panchayat.

This aspect is specifically reiterated in the report of the Village

Officer. It is submitted that the petitioner has also produced a sketch

of the property along with the Form-6 application. It is submitted

that the demand made in Ext.P8 is therefore completely untenable in

view of the fact that the property in the petitioner's possession is

only 9.82 Ares.

4. The learned Government Pleader submits that since the

property in the petitioner's possession was shown as 10.32 Ares in

Ext.P1 tax receipt, Ext.P8 notice has been issued. However, I notice

that Ext.P6 report of the Village Officer has not been considered while

issuing Ext.P8 notice. Moreover, Ext.P8 also shows that the extent of

the property is only 9.80 Ares. In the above view of the matter and in

view of the admitted situation that an application in Form-6 in

respect of a property having an extent of 25 cents or less is liable to

be considered without insisting on any fees, I am of the opinion that

the demand for fees by Ext.P8 is untenable. Ext.P8 is therefore set

aside. There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the

Form-6 application submitted by the petitioner, in respect of 9.80

Ares of property as provided in Ext.P8, without insisting on fees for

conversion. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of one

month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE ska

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7819/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PRESENT APPEARANCE OF THE PROPERTY

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT PAGE OF DATA BANK PREPARED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ISSUED BY 5TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11/03/2022 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18/10/2022

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.1.2023 IN W.P. (C) NO.42676/2022

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.2.2023 BEARING NO.1176/2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ASSET REGISTER OF PAMPAKUDA GRAMA PANCHAYAT

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 10.10.2022 BEARING NO. JC 1/3214/2022 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT