K.M Sathidevi vs The Revenue Divisional Officer ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1393 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
         FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 30TH POUSHA, 1944
                          WP(C) NO. 1998 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

              K.M SATHIDEVI
              AGED 59 YEARS
              W/O. RAJAN.K, 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
              KODUMBU VILLAGE, KODUMBU P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.,
              PIN - 678551
     4        THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
              KODUMBU PANCHAYAT, KODUMBU P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.,
              PIN - 678551

              SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE-GP
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.1998 OF 2023
                                 2


                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20th day of January, 2023

The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the

omission of the 2nd respondent-Additional Tahsildar (LR) in

entertaining Ext.P3 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 0.0586 Hectare of property

in Re-Survey Nos.3/3 and 3/24 of Kodumbu Village in Palakkad

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

Sub Collector invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land

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

non-agricultural purposes. The Sub Collector 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 WP(C) NO.1998 OF 2023

Order, 1967 in the year 1985, 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 Additional Tahsildar (LR), 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 1985. 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. WP(C) NO.1998 OF 2023

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

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

held that when an applicant has secured orders under the WP(C) NO.1998 OF 2023

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.

9. Government Pleader pointed out that there are

discrepancies in the Survey numbers of the property in the

proceedings under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1957 and

the application now made. Counsel for the petitioner would WP(C) NO.1998 OF 2023

submit that this can be due to Re-Survey proceedings. It will be

for the Tahsildar to consider this aspect while processing the

application.

The writ petition is therefore allowed. The 2nd respondent

is directed 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

hmh WP(C) NO.1998 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1998/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE NUMBER 65262533 DATED 31.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER DATED 24.08.1985 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 25.06.2018 IN W.P.(C) NO.16536/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2020 IN W.P.(C) NO.26007/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.