Dr. Vinod Ponvanibham Alex vs The Tahasildar (Land Records)
2021 Latest Caselaw 7265 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

 TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.5364 OF 2021(U)


PETITIONER:

              DR. VINOD PONVANIBHAM ALEX,
              S/O. P.K. ALEXANDER, ANJANA PONVANIBHAM,
              ERUVA EAST P.O., ERUVA MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE,
              KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
              NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.XI/709 N, KRUPA BHAVAN
              MY OWN COLONY, ERAYIL KADAVU,
              KOTTAYAM P.O. 686 001.

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

RESPONDENTS:

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

     2        THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
              VILLAGE OFFICE, MUTTAMBALAM,
              KOTTAYAM 686 002.

              SRI.RAVIKRISHNAN GP

    THIS      WRIT     PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON     02.03.2021,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.5364 of 2021
                                      2



                         W.P.(C)No.5364 of 2021
            -------------------------------------------------------
                                JUDGMENT

Petitioner holds an item of land measuring 4.78 Ares in

Muttambalam Village. Although the land of the petitioner is shown in

the revenue records as paddy land, 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 23.11.2020, 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.P6 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.P6

application.

W.P.(C)No.5364 of 2021

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.P6 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.P6 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 W.P.(C)No.5364 of 2021

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 ascertain whether the land of the

petitioner is covered by Ext.P2 order and if so, reassess the same,

treating it 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 W.P.(C)No.5364 of 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 27/11/2020 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, MUTTAMBALAM.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. H-2992/95 DATED 16/08/1995 ISSUED BY THE RDO, KOTTAYAM.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.

1463/2012 DATED 17/05/2012 OF ADDITIONAL SRO, KOTTAYAM.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.

864/2004 DATED 22/03/2004 OF ADDITIONAL SUB REGISTRAR OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.

2612(A)/10 DATED 02.06.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23/11/2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FORM A.

EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01/12/2020 OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN WPC NO. 26495/2020.