Josco Bullion Traders Pvt. Ltd vs The Tahsildar
2021 Latest Caselaw 8070 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 18TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                  WP(C).No.6113 OF 2021(L)


PETITIONER/S:

             JOSCO BULLION TRADERS PVT. LTD.,
             X/894, X/895, CENTRAL JUNCTION,
             K.K.ROAD, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001.
             REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
             P.A. JOSE, S/O ANTONY, AGED 71 YEARS,
             PAYAPILLI HOUSE, PUTHANANGADI,
             THIRUVATHUKKAL P.O.,
             KOTTAYAM-686003.

             BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN

RESPONDENT/S:

     1       THE TAHSILDAR,
             TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
             AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680003.

     2       THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
             AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE,
             AYYANTHOLE P.O.,
             THRISSUR DISTRICT-680003.

             BY SRI.RAVIKRISHNAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP         FOR
ADMISSION ON 09.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME         DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.6113 of 2021
                                                    2




                                    W.P.(C) No.6113 of 2021

                          ------------------------------------------------------

                                             JUDGMENT

Petitioner holds an item of land measuring 162 cents in

Ayyanthole 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 and others 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 them, for other purposes. Ext.P4 is the order

obtained by the petitioner in this regard. On 15.2.2020, 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.P5 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.P5 application.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the

learned Government Pleader.

W.P.(C) No.6113 of 2021

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that

Ext.P5 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.P5 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 W.P.(C) No.6113 of 2021

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

PV W.P.(C) No.6113 of 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1676/13 OF SRO.AYYANTHOLE.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 26/07/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.12.2019 OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE.

EXHIBIT P3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D1-14936/13 DATED 06.09.2013 OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED ON 15/02/2020 BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 19.02.2021 IN CONTEMPT CASE NOS.1311 OF 2020, 1336 OF 2020 AND 1354 OF 2020.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.02.2021 OM WPC NO.9171 OF 2020.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25.02.2021.