Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
MATHEW T.MATHACHAN – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner argues for land use rights. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. properties reclassified must adhere to new legal standards. (Para 3) |
| 3. court affirms land classification changes invalidate stop memo. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P5 stop memo and direct the 2nd respondent to accept land tax from the petitioner in respect of the property covered by Ext. P2 land tax receipt.
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of a property covered under Ext.P1 sale deed and P2 land tax receipt. Even though the petitioner’s property is a ‘dry land’, the same was included in the data bank as paddy land. Subsequently, by Ext.P4 proceedings the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC), excluded the petitioner’s property from the data bank. Notwithstanding Ext.P4 proceedings, the 2nd respondent has issued a stop memo directing the petitioner not to carry out any activities in the property. The 2nd respondent further communicated to the 4th respondent, not to accept land tax in respect of the petitioner’s property. Ext.P5 is illegal and arbitrary.
Hence, the writ petition.
2. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
3. It is n
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
