Kerala High Court
P.M.Abraham vs District Collector on 1 November, 2019
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1941
WP(C).No.40374 OF 2018(V)
PETITIONER/S:
1 P.M.ABRAHAM, AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. MARKOSE, LAKSHMY FUELS, ULLAS NAGAR,
VADAKKENCHERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2 I.V JOHN, S/O. VARGHESE, LAKSHMY FUELS,
ULLAS NAGAR, VADAKKENCHERY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
3 BINU, S/O. KARUPPAN, KUNNIPARAMBIL, ARIPALAM
P.O,IRINJALAKUDA.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.R.VENKETESH
SRI.G.KEERTHIVAS
RESPONDENT/S:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
PALAKKAD 678 001
2 TAHSILDAR,
ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 541
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD 678 001
BY ADV. SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 40374/18
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a declaration that, under the benefits of Ext.P1 order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO for short) and as per the Kerala Utilisation Order (KLU Order for short), they are entitled to use the property in question for any purpose other than paddy cultivation.
2. The petitioners assert that this position of law has been declared by this Court in various judgments including in Shahul Hameed v. Principal Secretary, Local Self Government [2018(1) KLT 1008]; and that they have, therefore, preferred an application before the Tahsildar, Alathur, who is the competent Authority under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, to change the classification of the property and include it as a 'Garden Land' in the applicable registers. They, therefore, pray that Exts.P3 and P4 be directed to be taken up WPC 40374/18 3 and disposed of at the earliest.
3. The learned Government Pleader, Sri.Paul Abraham Vakkanal, appearing on behalf of the official respondents, submits that even though the petitioners may have obtained Ext.P1 order under the KLU Order, still they will have to approach the competent Authority under Section 27C of the Paddy Land Act for change of classification of the tenor of their property; and consequently, that they will have to first obtain orders from the RDO under Section 27A of the said Act. He says that once such process is completed, the classification of property can be altered in the Basic Tax Register and Revenue Records, so that the petitioners can use the property for any other purposes.
4. Even when I hear the learned Government Pleader on the afore lines, it has been now well settled by this Court through a series of judgments that when conversion of the property WPC 40374/18 4 has already been regularised under the provisions of the KLU Order, a further application under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act is not necessary. That being so, with respect to the conversion which is already approved under the provisions of the KLU Order, axiomatically, a process under Section 27C is also not necessary.
5. In the case at hand, the petitioner has obtained an order under the KLU Order as early as in the year 2014, as is evidenced from Ext.P1. True, the said order has been granted for the purpose of shifting a petrol pump into it; but this does not alter the nature of the said order since under the KLU Order, permission once granted will inure to the benefit of the owner of the property, the entitlement to put it to use for any purpose, other than paddy cultivation. Therefore, the specific mention of a petrol pump in the said WPC 40374/18 5 order would be of no consequence, going by the afore cited judgment and therefore, it is ineluctable that the property can be used by the petitioners for any purpose, other than for paddy cultivation.
6. In the afore circumstances, I see no reason why the Tahsildar, Alathur cannot consider the petitioners' application, construing Exts.P3 and P4 to be made under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 since, as I have already said above, a further application under Section 27C of the Paddy Land Act is not necessary in this case.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar to take up Exts.P3 and P4 applications of the petitioners and deal with them as if they have been filed under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961; and then make necessary additional incorporations in the Basic Tax Register and WPC 40374/18 6 Revenue Records, after reassessing the property as a 'Garden Land' on the strength of Ext.P1 order.
The afore exercise shall be completed by the Tahsildar, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
RR JUDGE
WPC 40374/18
7
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13-08-
2014 ISSUED BY THE RDO, PALAKKAD EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF DECISION OF THIS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN SHAHUL HAMEED VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS, REPORTED IN 2018 (1) KLT 1008 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 08.01.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR, ALATHUR EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 08.01.2019 AND SUBMITTED ON 17.01.2019 BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKENCHERY