Kerala High Court
Mirath Realtors Pvt Ltd vs Revenue Division Officer on 28 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 28656 OF 2024 1
2025:KER:80827
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 28656 OF 2024
PETITIONER/S:
MIRATH REALTORS PVT LTD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR.VIPIN A.S,S/O
SADHANANDHAN,AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT AMPADIYIL
VILLA, PANNIVIZHA, ADOOR,PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN -
691523
BY ADV SHRI.K.C.VINCENT
RESPONDENT/S:
1 REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER,
R.D.O. OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682001
2 THE TAHSILDAR (LR),
TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANOOR, PIN - 682312
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 28656 OF 2024 2
2025:KER:80827
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
-------------------------------------
WP (C) No.28656 of 2024
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following
prayers :
i. "To issue a Writ of Certiori Quashing Ext P9 order dated
27.06.2024 by the 2nd Respondent .
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction, commanding 2nd Respondent to add the
classification of land of 32.42 Ares comprised in Survey No: 536/1-
3,536/1-4,536/2,536/1-5,536/2-2-2 respectively of Poonithura Village
as "Dry land/ Purayidam" in "Basic Tax Register" and all revenue
records forth with
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
order of direction, commanding 2nd respondents to reconsider Ext
P7 application in the light of the decision in District Collector,
Ernakulam & Others V. Fr. Jose Uppani & Others (2020(4) KHC 394
(DB)
iv. Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as
this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the
case. And
v. dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular
documents " [sic]
2. The petitioner is engaged in real estate
business is the submission. They decided to launch a project in
2025:KER:80827
Ernakulam and for that purpose, they purchased about 41.52
ares of land through separate sale deeds is the further
submission. Out of the above 41.52 ares, 10 ares of land is dry
land/purayidom and the remaining 32.42 ares is the converted
land is the submission. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an
application in Form-A before the 2nd respondent to reassess the
land tax and to add the classification as Dry land/Purayidom in
BTR and Thandapper register with necessary documents on
the strength of the Exts.P2 to P6 KLU orders. It is submitted
that, though the authorities convinced the fact that the above
land is converted long back and the land is liable to be
classified as Dry land/Purayidom as per Sec.6(3) of the Kerala
Land Tax Act, they have not issued orders in the above
application. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court
with W.P.(C.) No. 2864/2024 and this Court as per judgment
dated 24.01.2024 directed the 2nd respondent to consider the
application and pass orders in it, within two months. Even
then, the orders are not passed and the petitioner was forced
2025:KER:80827
to file a contempt case is the submission. Subsequently, the
order is passed rejecting the application for changing the
classification as Dry land/Purayidom in BTR and Thandapper
register relying the judgment rendered in the matter of
Poothotta Resorts v. Sub Collector, Fortkochi (WP(C) No.
1670/2022). According to the petitioner, Writ Appeal;
judgment was decided in favour of the petitioner/land owner
and directed the change of classification in that case. But, in
the present case, the Tahsildar on a mistaken interpretation of
judgment, rejected the claim of the petitioner is the
submission. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Government Pleader.
4. This Court perused Ext.P9. After going through
the order, I am of the considered opinion that the matter is to
be reconsidered by the authority especially because there are
KLU orders as evident by Exts.P2 to P6. In Tahsildar v.
Renjith George [2024 KLT Online 3102], the Apex Court
2025:KER:80827
observed like this :
12. "We do not deem it necessary to delve into the
aforesaid question and determine whether the amended Act is
retrospective or retroactive in effect. We say so for the reason
that the Legislature has explicitly introduced the amended
provisions from 30/12/2017 only. At best, the new conditions
inserted through the 2018 Amendment Act can, therefore, be
enforced qua those applicants only, who applied for the
conversion of their lands after 30/12/2017. In other words, all
those applications which had been submitted prior to the
amended Act coming into force, shall be governed by the
conditions contained under the unamended statutory scheme.
13. Our above understanding of the amended provisions,
is also in conformity with S.27A(13) of the Amending Act, which
mandates that the applications moved after the Amending Act
has come into force, shall be decided as per the newly amended
provisions. This provision, in our considered opinion, clarifies
by implication that such applications which were moved before
30/12/2017, will have to be adjudicated as per the unamended
Act."
5. Moreover, in Line Properties Pvt. Ltd. v.
Revenue Divisional Officer [2025 (2) KLT 348], this Court
observed like this :
6. "Even otherwise, the fact that the property was
2025:KER:80827
described in the Data Bank as "reclaimed land", by itself
indicate that, the authorities concerned, had applied their mind,
conducted an enquiry while preparing the Data Bank and
entered into a finding that the property is not a "paddy land" or
a "wetland". Therefore, the entry of the said property is an
erroneous entry as observed above, which itself is to be
removed, without any further enquiry
7. Apart from the above, as rightly pointed out by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner, Ext.P3 notification of the
Data Bank itself is not in the format as described in Form 4 of
the Paddy Land Rules. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
points out that, in Basil v. Local Level Monitoring
Committee (2024 (1) KHC 28) and Anu Mathew v Revenue
Divisional Officer (2022 (6) KLT 93), directions were issued by
this Court to remove such erroneous entry even without
insisting for Form 5 application, under similar circumstances.
Further, in W.A. No.211/2017, a Division Bench of this Court
made certain observations to the effect that, in cases where the
property is included in the Data Bank as "converted land", it
would only mean that, the conversion of the property took place
prior to the coming into force of the Act.
8. In such circumstances, in the light of the principles
laid down by this Court in the above - said decisions, the
respondents are bound to remove the property of the petitioner
from the Data Bank, as the same is entered therein with a
description as converted land. As mentioned above, it is only an
erroneous entry, and the same has to be removed. However,
2025:KER:80827
since the petitioner has already submitted Ext.P4 application in
Form 5, even though the same was not necessary, I am of the
view that, for issuing necessary orders in this regard for
removing the property from the Data Bank, the 2 nd respondent
can act upon Ext.P4."
6. In the light of the above judgments and also in
the light of the KLU Orders as evident by Exts.P2 to P6, I am of
the considered opinion that the matter is to be reconsidered by
the 2nd respondent.
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following
manner :
1) Ext.P9 is set aside.
2) The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider Ext.P7
application in the light of the principle laid down by this
Court in Line Properties Pvt. Ltd's case (supra) and the
Apex Court in Renjith George's case (supra) as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months
from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment
2025:KER:80827
3) The petitioner is free to produce additional documents, if
any before the 2nd respondent.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 28/10/25
Judgment dictated 28/10/25
Draft judgment placed 28/10/25
Final judgment uploaded 29/10/25
2025:KER:80827
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28656/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED
28.06.2023 SHOWING PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR
AN EXTENT OF 41.52 ARES OF LAND IN
POONITHURA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK,
ERNAKULAM
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER ISSUED UNDER
CLAUSE 6(2) OF KLU ORDER BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 28.06.2019
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER K2-
6697/2017/K.DIS ISSUED UNDER CLAUSE 6(2)
OF KLU ORDER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
01.07.2019
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER NO.K2-
6698/17/K.DIS ISSUED UNDER CLAUSE 6(2) OF
KLU ORDER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
01.07.2019
Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER NO.K2-
6699/2017/K.DIS ISSUED UNDER CLAUSE 6(2)
OF KLU ORDER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED
01.07.2019
Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER NO.K2-
6700/2017/K.DIS ISSUED UNDER CLAUSE 6(2)
TO MR.MOHANDAS DATED NIL-
Exhibit-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.10.2023
Exhibit-P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN
WP(C).2864/2024 DATED 24.01.2024
Exhibit-P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO TLKKNY/811/2024-H3
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit-P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT RENDERED IN
WRIT APPEAL NO.1670/2020 DATED 20.12.2022
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
DATA BANK PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE
DATED 25.02.2021
