Joshy A. Chemparathy vs The Tahasildar (Land Records)
2021 Latest Caselaw 8077 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.6065 OF 2021(G)


PETITIONER:

               JOSHY A. CHEMPARATHY,
               S/O.AUGUSTINE, MANAGING PARTNER, JOSH DEZIGNS,
               CHEMPARATHIKKAL, MUTHALAKODAM P.O.,
               THODUPUZHA - 685 605.

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

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE TAHASILDAR (LAND RECORDS),
               TALUK OFFICE,
               MUVATTUPUZHA (P.O.) - 686 673.

      2        THE VILLAGE OFFICER
               VILLAGE OFFICE, MANJALLOOR VILLAGE,
               MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK - 686 670.

               SRI.RAVIKRISHNAN, GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.6065 OF 2021(G)

                                  2




                  W.P.(C) No.6065 of 2021

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

                           JUDGMENT

Petitioner holds an item of land measuring 65.5

Ares in Manjalloor 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 larger area including the land

which is now held by the petitioner, for other purposes.

Ext.P2 is the order obtained by the petitioner in this regard.

On 22.2.2021, 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 WP(C).No.6065 OF 2021(G)

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.

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 WP(C).No.6065 OF 2021(G)

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 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 WP(C).No.6065 OF 2021(G)

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 WP(C).No.6065 OF 2021(G)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 02/04/2019 ISSUED FROM THE MANAJALLOOR VILLAGE OFFICE.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER NO.A9-

2605/2012/K.DIS. DATED 27/03/2014 ISSUED BY THE RDO, MUVATTUPUZHA.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 22/02/2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FORM A.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25/02/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.28571/2020.