Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 23983
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
JOSEPH MATHEW, – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER, – Respondent
WP(C)/14098/2020
SMT.MINI.V.A., SMT.G RANJITA GP
Lands acquired for development under government schemes are not subject to conservation restrictions, necessitating re-assessment for classification changes.
Headnote:
Land - Writ Petition - Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 - Section 27A
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner received land through assignment deeds from a development authority but was denied a building permit due to its classification as 'Nilam'. The petitioner applied for alternate land use permission, which was dismissed, leading to the challenge of the dismissal order.
Finding of the Court:
The court highlighted previous rulings indicating that lands acquired for development do not fall under restrictive provisions for conservation, allowing the petitioner to seek re-assessment of land classification from the authorities.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's land, acquired for residential development, is subject to restrictions under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that lands acquired under governmental development schemes are exempt from conservation restrictions, enabling the petitioner to have the land re-assessed for different purposes.
Final Decision: Petition granted, allowing re-assessment of land classification as dry land.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner obtained 38 cents of land situated in Elamkulam Village as per Exts.P1 to P3 assignment deeds from the Greater Cochin Development Authority (the GCDA). The land covered by the assignment deeds in favour of the petitioner is one acquired by the GCDA under a Town Planning Scheme sanctioned by the Government under the Town Planning Act 1108 for allotment for residential purpose. The land obtained by the petitioner, however, is shown in the revenue records as 'Nilam'. It is alleged by the petitioner that on account of the said reason, the petitioner is unable to obtain a building permit in respect of the land. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an application for permission to make use of the land for other purposes invoking Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order . The said application was dismissed by the respondent as per Ext.P12 order holding that the petitioner has to obtain permission for the said purpose under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 (the Act).
Ext.P12 order is under challenge in the writ petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.
3. Exts.P1 to P3 assignment deeds indicate that the land covered by the assignment deeds in favour of the petitioner is a land acquired by the GCDA under a Town Planning Scheme sanctioned by the Government under the Town Planning Act 1108 for allotment for residential purpose. InState of Kerala and others v. Binu Mathew Chacko and others, 2020 (6) KHC 717 , a Division Bench of this court held that the provisions of the Act will not have any application to the lands acquired, developed and allotted for residential or other purposes by Governmental agencies under development schemes framed under the Town Planning legislation. It is also held by the Division Bench in the said case that permission is deemed to have been granted for such lands under the Kerala Land Utilization Order . InIype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2020 (5) KLT 403 , this Court held that where statutory permission for change of user of land is granted for conversion of a paddy land to a garden land, then it is the obligation of the competent authority under the Kerala Land Tax Act to make a fresh assessment of the land so as to collect the higher land tax for such converted land and to issue appropriate directions to the officers concerned to make additional entries in the Basic Tax Register so as to reflect the nature of the land as garden land/Purayidam in the said Register. In the light of the said judgments of this Court, the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the third respondent for re-assessment of the land covered by Exts.P1 to P3 assignment deeds as dry land and directing further that in the event of the petitioner approaching the third respondent for the said purpose, the third respondent shall re-assess the land of the petitioner as dry land and make appropriate additional entry in the Basic Tax Register relating to the land indicating the present classification of the land, within two months from the date of receipt of the application for re-assessment.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE YKB APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1179 OF 1983 OF SRO, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1180/1983 OF SRO, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1221/2004 OF SRO, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF GO(MS)
44/74/LA AND SWD DATED 26/2/1974 PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE NO.15 DATED 9/4/1974.
EXHIBIT P4(A) THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REVISED MAP SHOWING THE PLOTS ALLOCATION IN SURVEY NOS.375 AND 376 OF ELAMKULAM VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P4(B) THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO.9610/PL3/2018/GCDA DATED 5/12/2018.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF BASIC TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 20/12/2018.
EXHIBIT P5(A) THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF BASIC
