Rajan. K vs The Revenue Divisional Officer ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1180 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 28TH POUSHA, 1944
                  WP(C) NO. 1646 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
          RAJAN. K
          AGED 66 YEARS
          S/O. LATE KRISHNAN,
          RESIDING AT 'KRISHNA',
          16/641(76),
          AISWARYA NAGAR,
          KUNNATHURMEDU P.O,
          PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678013

         BY ADVS.
         JACOB SEBASTIAN
         K.V.WINSTON
         ANU JACOB
         DIVYA R. NAIR


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
          YAKKARA VILLAGE,
          PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678001
    4     THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
          PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY,
          PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678001

         BY SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION     (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP      FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.01.2023,    THE COURT ON THE SAME       DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C) No.1646 of 2023             2




                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18th day of January, 2023

The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the

omission of the 2nd respondent-Additional Tahsildar in

entertaining Ext.P3 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 0.0728 Hectare of land in

Re-Survey No.36 of Block No.164 of Yakkara Village, Palakkad

Taluk in Palakkad District. The property in question was

purchased in the year 2001. The petitioner 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.

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 2007, 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.P3 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 Senior Government Pleader entered appearance

on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The

Senior 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 2007. The

veracity and the genuineness of Ext.P2 proceedings under the

Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 are liable to be verified. The

present 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 Senior 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 Basic Tax Register 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

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 disposed of directing the

2nd respondent-Additional Tahsildar to consider Ext.P3 Form-A

application submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law,

and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of one

month.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE sss

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1646/2023

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NUMBER 73325637 DATED 30.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER D.DIS.M.624/2007 DATED 09.04.2007 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11.01.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT.

EXHIBIT-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.26007/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.