Kerala High Court
Sasidharan K.K vs Revenue Divisional Officer on 17 June, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
WP(C) NO. 8621 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:42804
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 8621 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 SASIDHARAN K.K,
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNAN, KANJIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PERAMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680545
2 SOBHA,
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O SASIDHARAN K.K, KANJIRAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PERAMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680545
BY ADVS. SHRI.ASOK KUMAR K.P.
SHRI.ALEXANDER K.C.
SHRI.RAKESH S MENON
SHRI.ABDUL HAMEED RAFI
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680003
2 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS),
TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680020
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PERAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, PERAMANGALAM,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680545
By SR GP SMT VIDYA KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 8621 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:42804
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2025
The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P8 order and
declare that the 2nd respondent is duty bound to treat
Ext.P7 application as statutory in nature and pass orders
therein.
2. The petitioners are husband and wife. They
are the owners in possession of a property covered under
Exts.P1 to P3 sale deeds and Exts.P4 and P5 land tax
receipts. On 22.04.2016, the 1 st petitioner had filed an
application under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967
('KLUO', in short) to permit the petitioners to use their
property for any other purpose other than agriculture. By
Ext.P6 order, the 1st respondent partially allowed the
application by finding that the properties comprised in Re-
Survey Nos.97/1, 97/2 and 97/18 were not suitable for
paddy cultivation and could be used for any other purpose.
2025:KER:42804
However, the petitioners' application in respect of Re-
Survey Nos.96/5 and 96/4 was rejected. But, in the said
order, the 1st respondent incorporated a rider that the
petitioners would have to seek conversion as contemplated
under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy
Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short 'Act').
Notwithstanding the said condition in Ext.P6 order, the
petitioners had submitted Ext.P7 application in Form A of
the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 before the 2 nd respondent to
reassess the land tax and effect consequential changes in
the revenue records. Surprisingly, the 2 nd respondent
partially allowed Ext.P7 application by the impugned
Ext.P8 order by reassessing the land tax but directed the
petitioners to pay fee under Section 27A of the Act in order
to enjoy the property for any other purpose. Ext.P8 order
is manifestly illegal and erroneous. In LLMC,
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath and Others v.
Mariumma and Another [2015 (3) KHC 19], this Court
has explicitly held that, an applicant obtaining an order
2025:KER:42804
under KLUO need not invoke the provisions of the Act.
Therefore, Ext.P8 order may be quashed and the
respondents may be directed to permit the petitioners to
use their property for any other purpose without paying
any fees under Section 27 A of the Act.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement
asserting that, as Ext.P6 is a conditional order, the
permission under the KLUO cannot be treated as absolute.
It is specifically stated in Ext.P6 order that the petitioners
have to submit an application for the change of
classification in the village records as per Section 27A of
the Act. So as long as Ext.P6 order is in force, the
petitioners cannot aspire to file a Form A application
under the Kerala Land Tax Act. Hence, there is no
illegality in Ext.P8 order. Therefore, the writ petition may
be dismissed.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
2025:KER:42804
5. It is not in dispute that, by Ext.P6 order, the 1 st
respondent found that the petitioners' properties
comprised in Re-Survey Nos.97/1, 97/2 and 97/18 are not
suitable for paddy cultivation. Consequentially, the
application in respect of the above properties was
principally allowed. The application under the KLUO was
submitted on 22.04.2016 (which discernible from the
Judge's papers in W.P(C). No.4539/2017 filed by the
petitioners on the earlier occasion).
6. It is no longer res integra in view of the categoric
declaration of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Tahsildar v. Renjith George [2025 (1) KHC 271] that
Section 27A is not retrospective in nature.
7. Admittedly, the application under the KLUO was
filed much prior to incorporation of Section 27A in the Act
which came to force with effect from 31.12.2017.
Eventhough the 1st respondent passed Ext.P6 order on
05.03.2018, it is well settled that an application filed under
the KLUO prior to the incorporation of Section 27A has to
2025:KER:42804
be considered only under the provisions of the KLUO
(Read the judgment in Jacob Boban vs. State of Kerala
[2025 (1) KLT 804 (FB)]).
8. It is also held in Musthafa vs. State of Kerala
[2023 (5) KHC 201] that an application filed under KLUO
prior to the incorporation of the Section 27A into the Act,
has only to be considered as per the provisions of the
KLUO.
9. In the above conspectus, the incorporation of
condition in Ext.P6 order, that the petitioners have to take
recourse to Section 27A of the Act, is ex-facie illegal and
unsustainable under the law.
10\. In light of the abovesaid factual and legal
analysis, I am convinced that Ext.P8 order, directing the
petitioners to take recourse to Section 27A, is erroneous
and liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, I allow the writ petition in the
following manner:
(i). Ext.P8 order is quashed.
2025:KER:42804
(ii). The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider
Ext.P7 application, notwithstanding the observations
made in Ext.P6 order that the petitioners have to
seek permission under Section 27A of the Act, in
accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible,
at any rate, within one month from the date of
production of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
NAB
2025:KER:42804
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8621/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 1781/1991
DATED 14.08.1991 OF SUB REGISTRY MUNDUR
EXHIBIT P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 1782/1991
DATED 14.08.1991
EXHIBIT P- 3 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DATED 07.02.1992
OF SUB REGISTRY MUNDUR
EXHIBIT P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
NO.KL08015103854/2023 DATED 31.07.2023
EXHIBIT P-5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.
KL08015103854/2023 DATED 31.07.2023
EXHIBIT P-6 TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER PASSED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05.03.2018
EXHIBIT P-7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
02.08.2023
EXHIBIT P-8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
TLKTSR/4991/2023-B1 DATED 19.12.2023
EXHIBIT P-9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT V
MARIUMMA AND ANOTHER ( 2015 (3) KHC 19)
EXHIBIT P-10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT IN TAHSILDAR THODUPUZHA TALUK AND
ANOTHER VS. RANJITH GEORGE 2020 (1) KHC
EXHIBIT P-11 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 6 APPLICATION FILED
BY 1ST PETITIONER DATED 12.11.2024
EXHIBIT P-12 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 7 APPLICATION DATED
12.11.2024 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER
