Savitha V.Nair vs The Tahasildar (Land Records)
2021 Latest Caselaw 6715 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                    WP(C).No.28571 OF 2020(V)


PETITIONER:

               SAVITHA V.NAIR,
               AGED 30 YEARS, D/O.VIJAYAPPAN NAIR, SANGEETHA,
               CHANGANASSERY P.O., VAZHAPALLY EAST MURI,
               CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM - 686 101.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
               SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE TAHASILDAR (LAND RECORDS),
               TALUK OFFICE, CHANGANASSERY (P.O.)- 686 001.

      2        THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
               VILLAGE OFFICE, VAZHAPALLY EAST VILLAGE,
               CHANGANASSERY TALUK - 686 001.

               SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WPC No.28571 of 2020                  2




                       W.P.(C)No.28571 of 2020
            ------------------------------------------------------


                               JUDGMENT

Petitioner holds an item of land measuring 16.18 Ares in

Vazhapally East Village. Although the land of the petitioner is shown

in the revenue records as Nilam, the same was lying as a dry land

when the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008

(the Act) came into force. Earlier, the predecessor of the petitioner

had obtained permission from the competent authority under the

Kerala Land Utilization Order for making use of the larger area

including the land which is now held by the petitioner, for other

purposes. Ext.P2 is the order obtained by the predecessor of the

petitioner in this regard. On 01.12.2020, the petitioner has preferred

an application before the first respondent for reassessing the land as

dry land under the Kerala Land Tax Act and also for making

appropriate corrections in the revenue records pertaining to the

classification of the land. Ext.P7 is the application preferred by the

petitioner for the said purpose. The grievance of the petitioner

concerns the delay on the part of the first respondent in taking a

decision on Ext.P7 application.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also

the learned Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that

Ext.P7 application is not being disposed of by the first respondent as

he maintains the stand that the petitioner has to obtain orders under

Section 27A of the Act after remitting the prescribed fee, for the

relief claimed in Ext.P7 application.

4. In Renji K. Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer,

2019 (2) KLT 262, this court held that if the holder of a land which is

not included in the data bank prepared under the Act prefers an

application for permission to make use of the land for other

purposes under the Land Utilization Order before the coming into

force of Act 29 of 2018, in terms of which Sections 27A and 27C

were introduced to the Act, the said provisions cannot be pressed

into service against such a land. In the case on hand, the land of the

petitioner is covered by an order under the Land Utilization Order

long before Act 29 of 2018. In other words, the provisions of Act 29

of 2018 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 circumstances, the writ

petition is disposed of directing the first 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 months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE YKB

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 30/11/2020 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, VAZHAPALLY EAST.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H.301/95 DATED 16/08/1995 ISSUED BY THE RDO, KOTTAYAM.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.136/1995 OF S.R.O., CHANGANASSERY.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.153/1995 OF SRO, CHANGANASSERY.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.154/1995 OF SRO, CHANGANASSERY.

EXHIBIT P6             A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED
                       NO.1003/2017 OF SRO, CHANGANASSERY.

EXHIBIT P7             A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
                       01/12/2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST
                       RESPONDENT IN FORM A.

EXHIBIT P8             A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
                       01/12/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
                       WP(C) NO.26495/2020.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

                               NIL

                          //TRUE COPY//

                           PA TO JUDGE