Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Viju Abraham
Jasmin – Appellant
Versus
District Collector – Respondent
-
JUDGMENT :
Viju Abraham, J.
The above writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to carry out rectification of the description of the property belonging to the petitioner, wrongly entered in the basic tax register (BTR) as ‘nilam’ after resurvey, which was originally described as ‘Purayidom’ in the settlement register of Vakkom Village Office.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-
The petitioner, along with her mother, purchased an extent of 13.54 ares of property in Vakkom Village, Chirayinkeezhu Taluk, obtained as per Ext.P1 sale deed. They got the mutation of the property in their joint name and were remitting land tax. Later, the joint ownership right of the petitioner’s mother in the property covered under Ext.P1 was given in the name of the petitioner as per Ext.P2 settlement deed. Thereafter, the petitioner got the property mutated in her name as T.P. No.17130 of the Village Office, Vakkom and is remitting land tax as the sole owner, as is evident from Ext.P3 land tax receipt. While so, resurvey of the Vakkom Village was completed, and the resurvey records were handed over to the Vakkom Village by the 2nd responden
The court ruled that the respondents must correct erroneous land classification in the Basic Tax Register without requiring the petitioner to follow cumbersome procedures, emphasizing the need for ac....
The resurvey authorities are bound to ensure accurate classifications in the Basic Tax Register post-resurvey, and failure to do so necessitates judicial intervention.
Revenue Authorities possess the power to amend the Basic Tax Register based on prior survey results without requiring compliance with Section 27A of the Act.
The classification of land as 'purayidam' was upheld due to lack of authority for reclassification as 'nilam' under relevant statutes.
Reclassification of land after a resurvey must adhere to the authority outlined in specific legislation, and actions taken without such authority are deemed invalid.
The court clarified that revisions against orders of the Assistant Record Officer must be filed before the Record Officer, not the Commissioner, as per the U.P. Land Revenue Act.
Ownership and proper classification of land as determined by relevant findings must be reassessed when based on bureaucratic error.
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
