K. Prasad vs The Revenue Divisional Officer ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12069 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
     THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944
                         WP(C) NO. 39231 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

              K. PRASAD
              AGED 59 YEARS
              S/O. SETHUMADHAVAN NAIR, RESHMI NIVAS, VINAYAKA NAGAR,
              PUTHUR AMSOM & DESOM, THAREKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
              PIN - 678001
              BY ADVS.
              JACOB SEBASTIAN
              K.V.WINSTON
              ANU JACOB


RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD
              OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALAKKAD,
              PALAKKAD HEAD POST OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
              PIN - 678001
     2        THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), TALUK OFFICE,
              CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD HEAD POST OFFICE,
              PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
     3        THE VILLAGE OFFICER
              PALAKKAD III VILLAGE, KOPPAM P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN
              - 678001
     4        THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
              PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001

              SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE-GP
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.39231 OF 2022
                                     2


                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2022

The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the

omission of the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar in entertaining Ext.P4

Form-A application submitted by the petitioner for re-

assessment of rate of Basic Tax of land and for making

necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register.

2. The petitioner is owner of 0.2076 Hectares of

property in Re-Survey No.9 of Palakkad-III Village in Palakkad

District. The predecessor-in-interest of the land approached the

Revenue Divisional Officer invoking the provisions of the Kerala

Land Utilisation Order, 1967 seeking to permit to use the land

for non-agricultural purposes. The Revenue Divisional Officer

passed Ext.P2 order under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land

Utilisation Order, 1967 permitting to use the land for non-

agricultural purposes.

WP(C) NO.39231 OF 2022

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though

Ext.P2 order was passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation

Order, 1967 in the year 1997, the land of the petitioner is not

re-assessed for fixing rate of Basic Tax and the property of the

petitioner is still described as paddy land in the Revenue

records. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application invoking

Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 seeking to

re-assess the Basic Tax and to make necessary entries in the

Basic Tax Register. The Tahsildar, however, has not passed any

orders on the application. Hence, the petitioner has approached

this Court.

4. The Government Pleader entered appearance on

behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The

Government Pleader controverted all the material allegations

made by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is submitted that

Ext.P2 proceedings are of the year 1997. The veracity and the

genuineness of Ext.P2 proceedings under the Kerala Land

Utilisation Order, 1967 are liable to be verified. The present WP(C) NO.39231 OF 2022

status of the land will also have to be ascertained, before re-

assessment of Basic Tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader representing the

respondents.

6. This Court has considered the issue of reassessment

of land tax on the basis of the orders obtained under the Kerala

Land Utilisation Order, 1967 in the judgment in Mary Abraham

v. State of Kerala and others [2020 (4) KLT 448]. This Court

held that once enabling order is passed under Rule 6(2) of the

Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 permitting conversion of the

land, then the earlier entries in the BTR showing the land as

Nilam, Paddy Land, etc. will become superfluous and redundant

and the competent Revenue officials like the Tahsildar are

obliged under law to make a fresh assessment of the property

under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961.

7. A Division Bench of this Court also considered the

issue in District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose WP(C) NO.39231 OF 2022

Uppani and others [2020 (4) KLT 612] and the Division Bench

held that when an applicant has secured orders under the

Kerala Land Utiliation Order prior to the cut-off date on which

Section 27A was introduced to the Kerala Conservation of

Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the competent Revenue

officials are bound to consider the subsequent application

submitted under the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act,

1961.

8. As the nature of the land of the petitioner has been

permitted to be changed pursuant to passing of a statutory

order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, the

competent authority is bound to re-assess the rate of Basic Tax

in respect of the land and to make necessary entries in the

Basic Tax Register, if necessary, after verifying the

veracity/genuineness of the permission obtained under the

Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 produced by the petitioner.

The writ petition is therefore allowed. The 2 nd respondent-

Additional Tahsildar is directed to consider Ext.P4 Form-A WP(C) NO.39231 OF 2022

application submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law,

and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of two

months.

sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

hmh WP(C) NO.39231 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 39231/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 14.01.2020 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER DATED 05.11.1997 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.5433/1/2000 OF SRO, PALAKKAD DATED 02.11.2000 Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28.11.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.06.2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.16536/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.26007/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT