Muhammed Abdul Nasar vs Revenue Divisional Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 492 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 21ST POUSHA, 1944
                     WP(C) NO. 647 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

         MUHAMMED ABDUL NASAR
         AGED 62 YEARS
         S/O UNNEEN, IDUVAMMAN HOUSE
         PONNAYAKURUSSI P.O
         MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679322.
         PIN - 679322

         BY ADVS.
         K.I.SAGEER
         MUHAMMED YASIL


RESPONDENTS:

    1    REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
         REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE
         PERINTHALMANNA,MALAPPURAM-679332.
    2    TAHSILDAR
         PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, TALUK OFFICE
         PERINTHALMANNA,MALAPPURAM-679332.
         PIN - 679332
    3    VILLAGE OFFICER
         ANGADIPURAM VILLAGE OFFICE
         ANGADIPURAM, MALAPPURAM-679321.

         SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP    FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.01.2023,      THE COURT ON THE SAME     DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.647 of 2023

                                 2


                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11th day of January, 2023

The petitioner states that the petitioner is owner in

possession of 6.2728 Ares of land in Survey No.28/1 of

Angadipuram Village, Perinthalmanna Taluk of Malappuram

District.

2. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner

approached the Assistant Collector and obtained an order

under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, which

permitted usage of the land for non-agricultural purposes.

After the purchase of the land, the petitioner found that the

land is still described as paddy land in Revenue records. In

view of the permission granted under the Kerala Land

Utilisation Order, 1967 and in view of the subsequent changes

made to the land, the Revenue authorities are duty bound to

make necessary entries in the Revenue records.

3. For that purpose, the petitioner invoked the Kerala

Land Tax Act, 1961 and submitted Ext.P2 Form-A application WP(C) No.647 of 2023

seeking to reassess the Basic Tax of the land. The said

application stands rejected as per Ext.P4 order dated

05.11.2022 of the Tahsildar (LR). By Ext.P4 order, the

Tahsildar has directed the petitioner to invoke the provisions

of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules,

2008 in order to get the nature of the land changed in

Revenue records.

4. The petitioner states that Ext.P4 order is highly

arbitrary and illegal. When the predecessor-in-interest of the

petitioner has obtained permit under the Kerala Land

Utilisation Order, 1967, the petitioner cannot be forced to

invoke the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy

Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The issue involved is covered

by Ext.P5 judgment of this Court, contended the petitioner.

5. Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf

of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The

Government Pleader pointed out that the proceedings under

the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 were of the year 1987.

Whether the nature of the land is changed or not is a matter to WP(C) No.647 of 2023

be considered. If the land still remains as a paddy land, the

Tahsildar will be justified in requiring the petitioner to invoke

the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and

Wetland Act, 2008.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Government Pleader representing the

respondents.

7. From the pleadings in the writ petition, it is evident

that by Ext.P1 proceedings dated 20.07.1987, the

predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner has been permitted to

use the land in question for non-agricultural purposes on

certain conditions. It is based on such proceedings under the

Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 that the land has been put

to non-agricultural uses. After purchase of the property, the

petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 Form-A application for fixation

of the rate of Basic Tax. The said application stands rejected

as per Ext.P4 order.

8. This Court has considered a similar issue in Mary

Abraham v. State of Kerala [2020 (4) KLT 448], in which it WP(C) No.647 of 2023

has been held that if the land owner has obtained permission

under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, the Tahsildar is

bound to reassess the Basic Tax of the land in question.

9. In view of the judgment in Mary Abraham (Supra)

and in view of Ext.P5 judgment, the petitioner is liable to

succeed. Ext.P4 order of the Tahsildar is therefore set aside.

The 2nd respondent-Tahsidar is directed to consider Ext.P2

Form-A application submitted by the petitioner without regard

to the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land

and Wetland Act, 2008 or the Rules made thereunder. Orders

in this regard shall be passed within a period of one month.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk WP(C) No.647 of 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 647/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.5006/1987 DATED 20.07.1987 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FORM-A APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.08.2022 IN WP(C) NO. 27267/2022 Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.11.2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.12.2022 IN CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) NO.2530/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT