Kerala High Court
P.S.Radhakrishnan vs The District Collector on 17 March, 2021
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.3509 OF 2021(K)
PETITIONER/S:
P.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,
AGED 54 YEARS, S/O LATE PARAMESHWARAN NAIR,
NELLIPPALLIL HOUSE,
THEKKENADA, VAIKOM.P.O,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686141.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON
SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE,
KOTTAYAM, PIN-686002.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN-686575.
3 THE TAHASILDAR,
VAIKOM, VAIKOM TALUK OFFICE,
MINI CIVIL STATION,
WEST GATE ROAD, VAIKOM,
PIN-686141.
4 AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KRISHI BHAVAN, VAIKOM,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686141.
BY SRI.K.J.MANURAJ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.3509 of 2021
2
W.P.(C)No.3509 of 2021
-----------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
The father of the petitioner was holding a paddy land measuring 1 acre and 11 cents and he has converted the same as a dry land long prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act) on the strength of Ext.P5 order obtained on 12.7.1986 under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. As such, the land was not included in the data bank prepared under the Act. On the death of the father the petitioner, the said land was partitioned among the petitioner and his brother. Ext.P2 is the partition deed. In terms of Ext.P2 partition deed, petitioner got 66.56 cents out of the said 1 acre and 11 cents. It is stated by the petitioner that in the light of Ext.P5 order, a portion of the said land has been reclassified in the revenue records as 'purayidom' and the remaining land measuring 44 cents continued to remain in the revenue records as 'paddy land'. The petitioner preferred an application before the District Collector for reclassification of the said 44 cents. The said application was W.P.(C)No.3509 of 2021 3 rejected by the second respondent as per Ext.P7 order. It is stated by the petitioner that he was thereafter advised to prefer an application under Section 27A of the Act for the purpose of reclassifying the land and accordingly, he preferred an application under Section 27A of the Act in Form No.9 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules. The said application has been rejected by the competent authority in terms of Ext.P12 order stating that the petitioner could not establish that the land was converted prior to the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that it was unnecessary for the petitioner to move an application under Section 27A of the Act for the purpose of claiming reclassification of the land as the property was one covered by Ext.P5 order issued by the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order as early as on 12.07.1986. In the light of Ext.P5, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to claim reclassification of the land in the revenue records. It is stated by the petitioner that though he preferred Ext.P13 application before the competent authority under the the Kerala Land Tax Act for reassessment the land and also for reclassification on that premise, the same is not being considered. The petitioner, therefore seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.
W.P.(C)No.3509 of 20214
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.
3. In Renji K Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2019 (2) KLT 262, this court held that if the holder of a land which is not included in the data bank prepared under the Act prefers an application for permission to make use of the land for other purposes under the Land Utilization Order before the coming into the force of Act 29 of 2018 in terms of which Sections 27A and 27C were introduced to the Act, the said provisions cannot be pressed into service against such a land. In the case on hand, it is seen that the predecessor of the petitioner has obtained an order for conversion of the land long prior to Act 29 of 2018. In other words, the provisions of Act 29 of 2018 cannot be pressed into service in respect of the land of the petitioner. Further, in Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2020 (5) KLT 403, this Court held that where statutory permission for change of user of land has been obtained for conversion of a paddy land to a garden land in terms of the provisions contained in Kerala Land Utilisation Order, then it is the obligation of the competent authority under the Land Tax Act to make a fresh assessment of the land so as to collect the higher land tax for such converted land and to issue appropriate directions to the officers concerned to make additional entries in the Basic Tax W.P.(C)No.3509 of 2021 5 Register so as to reflect the nature of the land as garden land/Purayidam in the said Register. In the light of the decisions aforesaid, the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider Ext.P13 application preferred by the petitioner for reassessment of the land under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, and reassess the land as dry land, if the application is otherwise in order, after ascertaining whether the land is one covered by Ext.P5 order. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall prefer in the meanwhile, an application in the form prescribed under the Kerala Land Tax Act as well for compliance of the direction aforesaid.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE rkj W.P.(C)No.3509 of 2021 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER FROM NADUVILE VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 27.8.2019 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF WILL NO.8/III/1988 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, THALAYOLAPARAMBU DATED 8.2.1988 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.5462/1974 DATED 03.12.1974 OF SRO VAIKOM EXHIBIT P3(a) TYPED COPY OF EXT P3 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.5604/1967 DATED 29.12.1967 OF SRO VAIKOM EXHIBIT P4(a) TRUE COPY OF EXT P4.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO:K.DIS 3792/1986/A DATED 12.07.1986 OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, PALA EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25.05.2016 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.L3- 2615/2016(LDIS)DATED 23.09.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 13.05.2019.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 30.11.2020.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT SECTION 27A OF THE KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT 2008 DATED 24.01.2019.W.P.(C)No.3509 of 2021 7
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.RDOPLA/1218/2019-L7 DATED 25.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 8.2.2021.
EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED IN FORM NO:1 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 8-2-2021.