NISAMUDHEEN, ELAVAKKAT HOUSE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows.

(2.) Heard Smt.K.P.Santhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents 1 to 4.

(3.) The petitioner claims to be the owner having title, possession and enjoyment of properties having extent of 38.85 ares of land in Sy.Nos. 200/1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 13, and 6.33 ares of land in Sy.Nos.191/8/2, 191/14 and 191/8 of Thrikkakara North Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam Revenue District as per Ext.P-1 registered sale deed No.2094/2018 of SRO, Edapally and Ext.P-2 sale deed No.2095/2018 of SRO, Edapally, respectively. According to the petitioner, the lands in question has been . classified as converted land prior to 2008 as evident from the entry in that regard in the draft data bank published in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Lands Act, 2008. The petitioner had submitted applications for effective mutation of said properties and had submitted Ext.P-3 application dated 5.9.2018 for granting mutation in respect of the above said properties as per the provisions contained in the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. The properties has been mutated in favour of the petitioner and land tax has also been accepted from the petitioner and Ext.P-4 land tax receipt dated 22.10.2018 has also been issued by the 4th respondent Village Officer for the above said properties. It is mentioned in the remarks column therein that the land in question is VERNACULAR MATTER (paddyland). The limited contention raised by the petitioner is that the form for land tax receipt as shown in Ext.P-4 is not prescribed either in the Land Tax Rules, 1972 or the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. Accordingly the petitioner would content that the competent revenue officials like the Tahsildar/Village Officer etc have no jurisdiction to prescribe a proforma as conceived by them in order to show the nature fo the land and that this Court may direct that the action in that regard is without authority of law and this Court may direct that the entry made in Ext.P-4 describing the nature of the land whether it is dryland, wetland etc should not be stated etc.