Thangam Mammen vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 22143 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
    FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 22394 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          THANGAM MAMMEN
          AGED 66 YEARS
          W/O.C.P.MAMMEN, APARTMENT NO.12 D, CHAKOLAS HABITAT,
          PANDIT KARUPPAN ROAD, KOCHI - 682 013.

          BY ADVS.
          MILLU DANDAPANI
          RONIT ZACHARIAH



RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
          GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

    2     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
          COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM - 686 002.

    3     THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
          KOTTAYAM TALUK, MINI CIVIL STATION, PUTHENANGADY,
          KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

    4     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
          VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, VADAVATHOOR, KOTTAYAM - 686 010.

    5     THE SUB COLLECTOR
          MINI CIVIL STATION, PUTHENANGADY, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.


OTHER PRESENT:

          RIYAL DEVASSY-GP




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 22394 OF 2021

                                     2


                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the 3 rd respondent

Tahsildar in not considering the application under Section 6A of the

Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. According to the petitioner, the land

possessed by the petitioner has been subjected to proceedings under

the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, and as early as in the year

1983. The District Collector, Kottayam as per Ext.P1, has accorded

sanction to the predecessor of the petitioner for converting the said

land in Vijayapuram Village, Kottayam Taluk, Kottayam District for

coconut cultivation or for other development purposes.

2. The petitioner subsequently found that the nature of land is

still described as wetland in the revenue records. The petitioner

therefore submitted Ext.P2 application to the 3 rd respondent Tahsildar

requesting to make additional entries in BTR to show that the property

is a purayidam. However, the 3rd respondent instead of effecting the

changes, has issued Ext.P3 reply to the petitioner stating that since the

land in question is wetland, the petitioner has to submit proper

application before the Sub Collector/RDO under the Kerala WP(C) NO. 22394 OF 2021

Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since

the petitioner's predecessor has obtained an order under the Kerala

Land Utilization Order, 1967 for converting the land in question, the

petitioner cannot be now compelled to approach the authorities under

the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Pleader.

5. There is no doubt that if the petitioner's predecessors have

obtained a permission from the District Collector under the Kerala

Land Utilization Order for reclamation of Paddy fields not suitable for

paddy cultivation, then a further application under the provisions of

the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 will not

be required. However, the issue is whether Ext.P1 is a genuine

document granting permission under the Kerala Land Utilization

Order, 1967. If it is found that Ext.P1 is genuine, then Ext.P3 order of

the Tahsildar cannot stand the scrutiny of law. In case the property of

the petitioner, which is the subject matter of this writ petition, which WP(C) NO. 22394 OF 2021

is shown as 'paddy land/nilam' in the Basic Tax Register have been

converted as 'garden land/dry land/purayidom' on the strength of

Ext.P1 order or even earlier, the entries in the Basic Tax Register

describing the properties as 'nilam or paddy land' would become

redundant and the revenue authorities are statutorily obliged to pass

appropriate orders in exercise of their powers under Section 6A of the

Kerala Land Tax Act. Appropriate steps to secure additional entries in

the Basic Tax Register to show the change in nature of the land as

'garden land/dry land/purayidom' will have to be taken by the 3 rd

respondent so that higher land tax could be levied in respect of the

property in accordance with the conversion.

6. In the above facts and circumstances, I am inclined to set aside

Ext.P3 and direct the 3rd respondent Tahsildar to reconsider Ext.P2

application, after obtaining necessary report from the office of the 2 nd

respondent and to effect the alterations by additional entries in the

Basic Tax Register to show the change in nature of the land as

'purayidom/dry land/garden land' and to reassess the properties

accordingly. A final order in this regard shall be passed expeditiously,

at any rate within a period of 3 months.

WP(C) NO. 22394 OF 2021

The respondents 2 and 3 will consider the judgment of this Court

reported in District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani

and others [2020 (4) KLT 612] and in Iype Varghese v. Revenue

Divisional Officer, Idukki and others [2020 (5) KLT 403] also, while

deciding the issue.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE SVP WP(C) NO. 22394 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22394/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.K.D. IS 33468/83/H3 DTD. 21/06/1983 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 12/02/2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF COMMUNICATION BEARING NO.K4-2329/2021 DTD. 04/03/2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.