High Court of KeralaWP(C)/3500/2015disposed of

Edassery Towers Private Limited v. The District Collector

2015-04-08Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/18TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 3500 of 2015 (J) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

------------------------- EDASSERY TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED AGED 60 YEARS A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT ANGAMALY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, E.J.DAVIS AGED 60, S/O. JOSEPH, EDASSERY VEETTIL ANGAMALY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, PIN CODE-683572. BY ADVS.SRI.P.VISWANATHAN SRI.SUNIL N.SHENOI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

----------------------------------------------------

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM-682001.

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-682002.

3. THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRIT PIN-683572.

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683573.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 3500 of 2015 (J) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------ EXT.P1:

THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 2484 OF 1994 OF PUTHENCRUZ SUB REGISTRY EXT.P1(A): THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT OF THE SALE DEED NO 2926 OF 1994 OF PUTHENCRUZ SUB REGISRY EXT.P1(B):

THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT OF THE SALE DEED NO 3416 OF 1994 OF PUTHENCRUZ SUB REGISRY EXT.P1(C):

THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT OF THE SALE DEED NO 3417 OF 1994 OF PUTHENCRUZ SUB REGISRY EXT.P2:

THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXT.P3:

THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P4:

THE TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DTD 22/2/2014 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ------------------------ //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE vdv

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

========================= W.P.(C) No.3500 of 2015 ============================ Dated this the 8th day of April, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:

"1. Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, order or directing directing respondents 1 to 4 to effect necessary correction in the Basic Tax Register.

2. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction directing respondents 1 to 4 to treat the property covered under Exhibit-P1 series sale deeds as 'dry lands' for all purposes and to make appropriate changes in the revenue records as well as in the data bank.

3. Issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the circumstances of the case."

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only prayer is to direct respondents 1 to 4 to effect necessary correction in the Basic Tax Register and to treat the property covered under Exhibit-P1 series sale deeds as 'dry lands' for all purposes and to make appropriate changes in the revenue records as well as in the data bank.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits that by virtue of the law declared by Apex Court as per

W.P(C) No.3500 of 2015 the decision reported in Revenue Divisional Officer v. Jalaja Dileep (2015(1) KLT 984) (SC), the classification cannot be changed in the the BTR. However, if a proper application is filed under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order, it will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed within reasonable time.

3. In the said circumstance, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the application, if any filed in this regard, by the petitioner, in accordance with law, with reference to Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order, after calling for a report from the 4th respondent with regard to the nature of the land in question and after hearing, in the light of the law declared by the Apex Court as per the decision cited supra. This shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for further steps.

Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vdv