Bgr Hotels Pvt Limited vs District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 5768 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 28TH MAGHA,1942

                   WP(C).No.28894 OF 2020(J)

PETITIONER:

              BGR HOTELS PVT LIMITED,
              SAROVARAM, NH 66 COCHIN BYEPASS, MARADU,
              ERNAKULAM-682304, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
              DIRECTOR, G.GOPINATHAN, S/O. GOVINDA RAO,
              RESIDING AT MANKUTTATHIL HOUSE, DIWAN'S ROAD,
              COCHIN-682016.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.SAJI VARGHESE KAKKATTUMATTATHIL
              SRI.VINAY KUMAR VARMA

RESPONDENTS:

     1        DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
              ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION,
              KAKKAND, KOCHI-682030.

     2        TAHSILDAR,
              KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE,
              ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682016.

     3        VILLAGE OFFICER,
              MARADU VILLAGE, MARADU P.O., PIN-682304.

     4        MARADU MUNICIPALITY
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
              MARADU P.O., PIN-682304.

              R4 BY SHRI.T.R.RAJAN SC, MARADU MUNICIPALITY
              SMT. G.RAJITHA GP

    THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 17.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.28894 of 2020              2




                      W.P.(C) No.28894 of 2020
               -----------------------------------------------

                            JUDGMENT

Petitioner holds an item of land measuring 4.72

acres in Maradu Village. Although the land of the petitioner is

shown in the revenue records as 'Nilam', it is stated by the

petitioner that the same was converted long prior to the

introduction of the Land Utilization Order (Kerala). It is also

stated by the petitioner that later, by way of abundant caution,

they obtained permission to make use of the land for other

purposes under Clause 6(2) of the Land Utilization Order. Ext.P1

is the order issued by the competent authority in this regard on

20.12.1993. On 14.12.2020, the petitioner preferred an

application before the second respondent for making

appropriate corrections in the revenue records pertaining to the

classification of the land. Ext.P3 is the application preferred by

the petitioner in this regard. It is stated by the petitioner that

the second respondent is not taking action on Ext.P3 application

taking the stand that the petitioner has to obtain permission of

the competent authority under Section 27A of the Kerala

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008(the Act) for

the purpose of seeking correction in the revenue records as

regards the classification of the land. The petitioner is aggrieved

by the said stand of the second respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

also the learned Government Pleader.

3. In Renji K Paul v. Revenue Divisional

Officer, 2019 (2) KLT 262, this Court held that if holders of

lands which are shown in the revenue records as 'Nilam' prefer

applications for permission to make use of the lands for other

purposes under the Land Utilization Order before the coming

into force of Act 29 of 2018, in terms of which the Act has been

amended, the provisions in the amended Act cannot be pressed

into service in respect of such lands. In the case on hand, it is

seen that the petitioner has obtained permission from the

competent authority under the Land Utilization Order long prior

to the coming into force of the Act. As such, the provisions of

the Act cannot be pressed into service in respect of the land of

the petitioner. Further, in Iype Varghese v. Revenue

Divisional Officer, 2020 (5) KLT 403, this Court held that where

statutory permission for change of user of land has been

obtained for conversion of a paddy land to a garden land in

terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Utilisation

Order, then it is the obligation of the competent authority under

the 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 decisions aforesaid, the writ

petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to

reassess the land of the petitioner treating the same as

Purayidam/dry land and issue appropriate orders directing the

officers concerned to change the classification of the land in the

Basic Tax Register and other revenue records as Purayidam/dry

land. This shall be done within two weeks from the date of

production of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall file

the application for reassessment of the land as prescribed in the

Kerala Land Tax Rules also before the second respondent for the

purpose of compliance of the directions aforesaid.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

YKB

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 20/12/1993 BEARING NO.

K.DIS/7255/1993/J ACCORDED SANCTION TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 31/12/1997.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14/12/2020 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/10/2020 IN SLP NO. 11853/2020 OF THE SUPREME COURT.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE