M/S. Lakshmi Paper Industries Pvt ... vs The Revenue Divisional Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 10389 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

  FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                       WP(C).No.7901 OF 2021(K)


PETITIONER:

              M/S. LAKSHMI PAPER INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,
              REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR SHAJI K. MATHEW,
              S/O.K.C. MATHEW, 1ST FLOOR, ANJANA COMPLEX,
              KUNDANNUR, VYTTILA, PIN-682 304

              BY ADV. SMT.ANU S NAIR

RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
              REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI,
              KOCHI-682 001

     2        THAHASILDAR,
              KANAYANNUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE,
              ERNAKULAM-681 011

     3        THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
              MARADU, NETTOOR, MARADU-682 040

              SRI.RAVIKRISHNAN GP

    THIS      WRIT     PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON     26.03.2021,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P. (C) No.7901 of 2021               2




                      W.P. (C) No.7901 of 2021
                -----------------------------------------------

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner holds an item of land measuring

5.1973 hectors in Manakunnam Village. Although the land of the

petitioner is shown in the revenue records as paddy land, the

same was lying as a dry land for the last several years. During

2005, the petitioner preferred an application under Clause 6(2)

of the Kerala Land Utilization Order for permission to make use

of the land for other purposes. Though the said application was

dismissed by the competent authority, the said decision was

reversed by the appellate authority as per Ext.P2 order on

10.03.2006. On the basis of Ext.P2 order, the petitioner

preferred Ext.P3 application before the second respondent for

reassessing the land as a 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. The

petitioner alleges that Ext.P3 application is not being considered

by the second respondent.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

also the learned Government Pleader.

3. When this matter was taken up, the learned

counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P3 application is

not being considered, as the second respondent maintains the

stand that the petitioner has to obtain orders in terms of Section

27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act,

2008 for the purpose of seeking reassessment of the land and

also for seeking reclassification of the land in the revenue

records.

4. In Renji K Paul v. Revenue Divisional

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

land prefers an application for permission to make use of the

land for other purposes under the Land Utilization Order before

the coming into the 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, it is seen that the petitioner obtained

permission under the Land Utilization Order on 10.03.2006. Act

29 of 2018 was introduced only with effect from 30.12.2017. 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 light of the decisions

aforesaid, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing

the second respondent to reassess the land of the petitioner

covered by Ext.P2 order treating the same as Purayidam/dry

land and issue appropriate orders directing the officers

concerned to change the classification of the lands 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 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 11.06.2020 OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. LR (A) 1-55785/2005 DATED 10.03.2006 ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER GRANTING PERMISSION FOR CONVERSION OF LAND.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 6(A) OF THE KERALA LAND TAX ACT 1961 FOR REASSESSMENT OF LAND TAX AND CORRECTION OF BTR.