Bina Mathew vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 22157 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. 22392 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          BINA MATHEW
          AGED 69 YEARS
          W/O. PHILIP MATHEW, MANORAMA, THEVARA P .O,
          KOCHI - 682013.

          BY ADVS.
          MILLU DANDAPANI
          RONIT ZACHARIAH



RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
          GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695001.

    2     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM - 686002.

    3     THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
          KOTTAYAM TALUK, MINI CIVIL STATION, PUTHENANGADY,
          KOTTAYAM - 696001.

    4     THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
          VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, VADAVATHOOR, KOTTAYAM - 686010,

    5     THE SUB COLLECTOR.
          MINI CIVIL STATION, PUTHENANGADY, KOTTAYAM - 686001.



          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. 22392 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 3rd respondent

Tahsildar requesting to make additional entries in BTR to show that

the property is a purayidam. However, the 3 rd 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 WP(C) NO. 22392 OF 2021

to submit proper application before the Sub Collector/RDO under the

Kerala 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 WP(C) NO. 22392 OF 2021

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 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 2nd respondent and to effect the alterations by additional

entries in the Basic Tax Register to show the change in nature of the WP(C) NO. 22392 OF 2021

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.

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. 22392 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22392/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. K.D. IS 33468/83/H3 DATED 21.06.1983 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12.02.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF COMMUNICATION BEARING NO. K-4-2327/2021 DATED 04.03.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.