Kerala High Court
M.K.Michael vs The Tahasildar on 1 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.5182 OF 2021(W)
PETITIONER:
M.K.MICHAEL, AGED 70 YEARS
S/O. M.K.KURUVILA, MALIAKAL HOUSE, NEENDOOR
P.O., ONAMTHURUTH VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TAHASILDAR
KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686001.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (R.D.O.),
KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686002.
OTHER PRESENT:
GP. RAVI KRISHNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.5182 of 2021
..2..
W.P.(C) No.5182 of 2021
-----------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Petitioner holds a land measuring 75.40 Ares in
Onamthuruth 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 petitioner had obtained
permission from the competent authority under the Kerala Land
Utilization Order for making use of the land which was held by them,
for other purposes. Ext.P2 is the order obtained by the petitioner in
this regard. On 10.02.2021, the petitioner 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.P3 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.P3
application.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also
the learned Government Pleader.
W.P.(C) No.5182 of 2021
..3..
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that
Ext.P3 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.P3 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 petitioner
preferred an application for permission under the Land Utilization
Order as early as on 22.11.2016 and it is on that application that
Ext.P2 order has been passed by the competent authority under the
Land Utilization Order. 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
W.P.(C) No.5182 of 2021
..4..
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. The petitioner shall
produce a copy of this judgment for compliance before the first
respondent along with an application for reassessment of the land in
the Form prescribed under the Kerala Land Tax Rules.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE
ds
W.P.(C) No.5182 of 2021
..5..
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
23.11.2017 IN WPC NO.185/2017 OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.4.2018
ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
10.2.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
