Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Thankamma Joy on 1 August, 2024
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
WA NO. 962 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1946
WA NO. 962 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.21437 OF 2022 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT ANNEXE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
- 695001
2 ADDITIONAL TAHASILDAR
KANAYNNUR TALUK, PARK AVENUE, NEAR SUBHASH PARK, MARINE
DRIVE, KOCHI, PIN - 682011
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
VILLAGE OFFICE, CHERANALLUR, CHITTOOR ROAD, SOUTH
CHITTOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682027
BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.P.HARISH
RESPONDENT/S:
THANKAMMA JOY
AGED 71 YEARS
WIFE OF JAMES JOY, KANATT HOUSE, VIDYA VIHAR ROAD,
THEAVARA PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682015
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.08.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 962 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1ST day of August 2024
A.Muhamed Mustaque, Acg.C.J.
This appeal is filed by the State. A parcel of land comprised in
Survey No.1082/2 and 1082/4 of Cheranallur Village was originally
recorded as paddy land. The land stands in the name of
Smt.Thankamma Joy, the respondent herein. She approached this Court
in the year 2013 in W.P.(C)No.9767 of 2013 stating that the description
of the land in the revenue records as 'nilam' is wrong and the same has
to be corrected. The learned Single Judge of this Court, by judgment
dated 08.04.2013, directed the Tahsildar to consider her request. The
Tahsildar considered the request and, in exercise of power under Section
18 of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 ordered to rectify the entry in the
BTR and reclassify the land as 'reclaimed purayidam' instead of 'nilam'.
This order was passed by the Tahsildar on 14.05.2013. Thereafter, basic
tax receipts were issued showing the land as 'reclaimed land'. However,
in the year 2021, the tax receipts again described the land as nilam. This
led Smt.Thankamma Joy to approach this Court by filing another writ
petition, W.P.(C)No.21437/2022.
WA NO. 962 OF 2024
2. The learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.21437/2022 noting
that the Tahsildar had already rectified the description and it had
become final, the land description in the tax receipt, cannot be with
reference to the original classification of the land and, therefore, ordered
to issue basic tax receipts describing the land as 'reclaimed land'.
3. The State has filed this appeal stating that the Tahsildar
acted ignoring the judgment of the Apex Court in Revenue Divisional
Officer, Fort Cochin & others v. Jalaja Dileep and another [2015
(2) KHC 109].
4. The Apex Court in Jalaja Dileep's case held that without
there being an order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 such
a correction cannot be resorted. It is to be noted that the above
judgment was delivered only on 10.03.2015. However, in the case in
hand, the Tahsildar acted in the year 2013 itself by correcting the Basic
Tax Register.
5. In view of the fact that the land records were already
corrected and the action of the Tahsildar was not questioned by any
higher authority, at any point of time, we cannot revisit the matter after
more than nine years. Further, the Tahsildar might have been satisfied
that the description of the land has to be in tune with the actual lie and
nature of the property. Upon being satisfied with the requirement, the
Tahsildar ordered rectification of the description. It cannot be reviewed
WA NO. 962 OF 2024
or rectified unless any fraud is alleged as to the Tahsildar's order for
rectification. The present attempt of the officials to describe the land as
'nilam' is ignoring the order passed by the Tahsildar as early as in 2013.
As long as the Tahsildar's order of 2013 remains in force. Such an
attempt is illegal.
We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The
writ appeal stands dismissed. We grant six weeks time to the appellants
to comply with the judgment.
Sd/
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
sd/
S.MANU
JUDGE
jm/
WA NO. 962 OF 2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
BASIC TAX REGISTER
Annexure II A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC
NO.11784/2012 DATED 13.07.2012
Annexure III A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A
NO.412/2013 DATED 02.01.2014
Annexure IV A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI V. JALAJA
DILEEP [2015(2) KHC 109]
Annexure V A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN LOCAL
LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE UNDER S.5 OF THE
KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WETLAND
ACT, 2008 IN KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
AND OTHERS V. MARIUMMA AND ANOTHER [2015 (3)
KHC 19]
