Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
P.S.Indira, W/o.Late K.C.Sudakaran – Appellant
Versus
The Sub Collector, R.D.O. - Respondent
W.P(C). No. 10525 of 2020
Decided on : 28-05-2020
Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961- Sec.5 ;; The Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972- Rule 4;; The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008-Purayidam-Building Permit- Nilam --The name of the land holder and the nature of the property are thereafter duly recorded in the BTR, after such due process-Basic Tax Register -Statutory document -The entries in such a vital statutory document like the BTR cannot be simply ignored by the competent revenue officials concerned-The old settlement register shows the description of the property otherwise-Against the scheme of the statutes as framed in the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972.
Statement of facts:
The Petitioners' land has been not been included in the Land Data Bank prepared under the Paddy Land Act- The petitioners applied for and obtained Ext.P5 Building Permit from Eloor Municipality to construct a godown in their land after demolishing the old building. The petitioners commenced the construction as per Ext.P5 permit and the approved plan. Suddenly, the 2nd respondent issued Ex.P6 Stop Memo interdicting the petitioners from continuing with the construction of the godown on the premise that in an old record, the Petitioners' land was recorded as 'Nilam'. Ext.P6 is patently illegal. According to the petitioners the 2nd respondent cannot harp upon a redundant record to prevent the Petitioners from carrying out a lawful activity in their land.
Finding of the court:
The land was earlier classified as 'garden land' or 'purayidam', which is clearly recorded in the Basic Tax Register in relation to the subject property-Description in the vital statutory document like BTR as per Rule 4 cannot be disturbed merely because of the respondents find subsequently that there are some old records like the old settlement register, which show the description of the property otherwise-The least arbitrary and against the statutory provisions and therefore it is illegal and ultra vires.
Result: Writ Petition (Civil) disposed of.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The arrangement under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, is deemed a general revenue settlement of the State, and this classification overrides any contrary provisions in other enactments, grants, deeds, or transactions. The Act confers power on the State Government to frame rules, leading to the creation of the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972, which mandate the maintenance of a Basic Tax Register (BTR) in all Village and Taluk Offices (!) (!) .
The Basic Tax Register is a vital statutory document that records the name of the landholder and the nature of the property after due process. The entries in the BTR cannot be ignored by revenue officials, as they are integral to the statutory scheme for land tax collection. The description in the BTR, based on recent surveys and inspections, is to be given primacy over older records such as settlement registers (!) (!) (!) .
The land in question was historically classified as 'garden land' or 'purayidam' in the revenue records, including the BTR, and this classification is consistent across relevant documents. The land was not included in the Land Data Bank under the Paddy Land Act, indicating it does not qualify as paddy or wetland land (!) (!) (!) .
The respondent's reliance on old records, such as the settlement register indicating the land as 'Nilam' or paddy land, to justify the stop memo is deemed illegal and ultra vires because it contradicts the current, statutory, and consistent entries in the BTR (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the description of the land as 'purayidam' or 'garden land' in the statutory BTR, confirmed by recent surveys, takes precedence over outdated or redundant records. The attempt to disturb this classification based on old documents is arbitrary and against the statutory scheme (!) (!) .
The court found the respondent's action to be arbitrary, illegal, and against the principles of statutory interpretation. Consequently, the directions issued in the stop memo (Ext.P6) were declared illegal, ultra vires, and set aside, leading to the quashing of the stop memo (!) (!) .
The petitioners' lawful activities, including construction based on valid permits, cannot be interdicted solely on the basis of outdated or incorrect revenue records. The court ordered that the impugned stop memo be quashed and directed that the land's classification as 'purayidam' be recognized as correct and binding (!) .
The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions and the primacy of the Basic Tax Register in land classification and revenue matters, reaffirming that reliance on outdated records to alter settled classifications is impermissible (!) (!) .
If you need further analysis or specific legal advice based on this case, please let me know.
JUDGMENT :
The case set up in this writ petition (C) is as follows:
The petitioners are constrained to approach this Court aggrieved by Ext.P6 Stop Memo issued by the 2nd respondent interdicting them from carrying out construction of a building in their Purayidom on the basis of a valid Building Permit, on a premise that the Petitioners' land was classified in some old revenue document as 'Nilam', whereas going by all the existing Revenue Records including the BTR, the Petitioners' land is classified as Purayidom wherein a building has been in existence even prior to the coming into force of the KLU Order, 1967. That the petitioners are the title holders of 38.23 Ares of Purayidom comprised in Resurvey No.4/2 of Block No.82 of the Eloor Village. The nature of the Petitioners' land is Dry Land. Therefore the Petitioners' land is classified in all the revenue records including the Basic Tax Register as Purayidom, which is evident from Exts.P1 Tax Receipt, P3 Thandaper Account & P4 Possession Certificate. There is no history of any paddy cultivation or any other sort of cultivation in the Petitioners' land or in any nearby lands. Being an industrial area, the Petitioners' land is a commercially important land as the area in question is housing many industrial units. The Petitioners' land has been not been included in the Land Data Bank prepared under the Paddy Land Act. The petitioners applied for and obtained Ext.P5 Building Permit from Eloor Municipality to construct a godown in their land after demolishing the old building. The petitioners commenced the construction as per Ext.P5 permit and the approved plan. Suddenly, the 2nd respondent issued Ex.P6 Stop Memo interdicting the petitioners from continuing with the construction of the godown on the premise that in an old record, the Petitioners' land was recorded as 'Nilam'. Ext.P6 is patently illegal. According to the petitioners the 2nd respondent cannot harp upon a redundant record to prevent the Petitioners from carrying out a lawful activity in their land.
It is in the light of these averments and contentions, that the petitioners have filed the instant Writ Petition (C) seeking the following reliefs:
(ii) Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring that the Petitioners 38.23 Ares of land in Resurvey No.4/2 in Block Number 82 of Eloor Village is Purayidom and that the Petitioners are entitled to carry out construction activities in their land on the basis of Exhibit P5 Permit and that the 2nd respondent has no authority whatsoever to harp upon a redundant Revenue Document to interdict the Petitioners form carrying out construction in their land.
(iii) Pass such other appropriate Writs, Orders or Directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper to issue in the circumstances of the case.”
2. Heard Sri.Renny Stephan Chamaparambil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.K.J.Manu Raj, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would assert on the basis of instructions of his parties that the subject property covered by the impugned Ext.P6, has always been consistently shown as purayidam/garden land in the Basic Tax Register and other relevant documents. Further that the subject property has not been included in the land data bank prepared as per the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, which came into force on 12-08-2008. That the area is a industrial area surrounded by a lot of buildings, both residential and commercial.
Further that Ext.P2 building tax receipt would clearly show that there was an existing building in the subject property at least since the year 1962, which is even much prior to the 04-07-1967 (date of coming into force of the Kerala
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
