Sunil Kumar P.G vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 14789 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
     THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 13208 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          SUNIL KUMAR P.G
          AGED 53 YEARS
          S/O. P.K. GOPINATHAN NAIR, SHANTHI NIVAS, MANAGANAM
          P.O, VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM-686 001

          BY ADV GIKKU JACOB



RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

    2     REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
          REVENUE TOWER, THIRUNAKKARA P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 001

    3     THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
          VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE OFFICE, VADAAVATHOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM-
          686 001

    4     TAHASILDAR,
          REVENUE TOWER, THIRUNAKKARA P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 001

          BY GOVT.PLEADER:SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                         2
WP(C) NO. 13208 OF 2021




                                JUDGMENT

The application submitted by the petitioner seeking

permission for, "conversion for other purpose", in terms of

clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 was ordered

by the 2nd respondent but with a rider, requiring payment of fee

in terms of Section 27A(3) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy

and Wetland Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

The order, to the extent it required the petitioner to pay fee in

terms of the Act, was interfered with by this Court, at the

instance of the petitioner, in W.P.(C).No.11646/2020 and

connected cases.

2. In the aforementioned judgment, this Court

categorically held that, on the application under clause 6(2) of

the Land Utilization Order being allowed, there is no

requirement for payment of any fee under the Act. The relevant

portions of the judgment are extracted hereunder:

"... it is ordered and declared that Ext.P-3 order produced

in these cases to the extent it grants permission to the

respective petitioners under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land

Utilisation Ordinance, 1967, for change of use of the land

is affirmed and upheld. The impugned restrictions therein

WP(C) NO. 13208 OF 2021

for payment of the higher amounts in terms of the

amended provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy

Land and Wetland Act, 2008, which has introduced Section

27A thereof and the amended Rules framed thereunder as

well as the other restrictions flowing out from the

amended provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy

Land and Wetland Act will stand set aside and quashed.

Ext.P-3 orders passed in these cases should be treated as

an unconditional order granted by the 2nd

respondentRevenue Divisional Officer giving permission

under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Ordinance,

1967, in each of these three cases for change of use of the

land so that the land could be used for any non-

agricultural purposes, including for construction of

building, etc. "

"On receipt of such representation the 3rd respondent-

Tahsildar will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard

to the petitioner and then should pass necessary orders

thereon under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961,

in the matter of reassessment of the subject property so

as to check the additional entries in the Basic Tax Register

to show the change of use of land as 'garden

land/purayidom' instead of the earlier Basic Tax Register

entries as 'nilam/paddy land', without much delay and in

the light of the dictum laid down by a Division Bench of

this Court in decisions as in Renjith's case (supra) [2020

WP(C) NO. 13208 OF 2021

(1) KHC 865 (DB)], Mariumma's case (supra) [2015 (2) KLT

516 (DB)] and within one month from the date of

production of a certified copy of this judgment and without

compelling the petitioners to pay the amounts amended as

per the amended provisions of the 2008 Act which has

introduced Section 27A thereto and the amended Rules

thereunder including of Rule 12(17)."

The directions of the Court were very clear and categoric

that, the petitioner is not required to move or make any

payments in terms of the Act for reassessment of tax.

3. However, on the application of the petitioner for

reassessment of tax and for making additional entries in the

Basic Tax Register, the 4th respondent passed Ext.P4 order,

requiring the petitioner to pay fee in terms of the Act. Ext.P4

has been passed in utter disregard to the specific directions of

this Court in W.P.(C).No.11648 and connected cases. Requiring

the petitioner to effect payment of fee in terms of the Act is

exfacie illegal, contrary to the judgment passed by this Court

and is unsustainable.

4. In the result, Ext.P4 order dated 07/10/2020 issued

by the 4th respondent is quashed. The 4 th respondent shall,

within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment, pass fresh orders on the petitioner's application

WP(C) NO. 13208 OF 2021

dated 04/07/2020 filed under Section 6A of the Land Tax Act,

1961.

5. The writ petition is allowed as above.

Before parting with the case, I hasten to note that, inspite

of the declaration of law in Local Level Monitoring

Committee constituted under Section 5 of the Kerala

Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 in

Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath and Others v.

Mariumma and another [2015(3) KHC 19] [DB] and

Tahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk and another v. Renjith

George [2020(1) KHC 865] [DB] that, on an order for

conversion being granted under the KLU order, there is no

requirement to move in terms of Section 27A of the Act and

that land tax is liable to be reassessed and additional entries

made in the Basic Tax Register on an appropriate application,

several orders are being passed by the authorities calling upon

the parties to secure an order under Section 27A of the Act to

enable reassessment of tax and to make additional entries in

BTR. Without probing further into the cause for the same, on

the assumption that it is an erroneous understanding or failure

to understand the law as laid down by this Court, I direct the

Advocate General office to have the issue taken up and clarified

WP(C) NO. 13208 OF 2021

at the appropriate level of the Government and cause

necessary steps to be taken immediately.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE

rsr

WP(C) NO. 13208 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13208/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.10.2017 IN W.P.C NO. 33800 OF 2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2018 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 15.06.2020 IN W.P.C NO.11646 OF 2020.

Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2020 BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.