Kerala High Court
N.P. Beepathu vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 24 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 21155 OF 2025
1
2025:KER:79391
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 21155 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
N.P. BEEPATHU
AGED 73 YEARS
W/O. KB MUHAMMEDKUTTY, KALATHIL HOUSE, NETTOOR
DESOM, NETTOR P.O, MARADU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682304
BY ADV SHRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI FORTKOCHI
P.O,, PIN - 682001
2 TAHASILDAR (LR)
THALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR TALUK ERNAKULAM P.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682011
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
MARADU VILLAGE OFFICE NETTOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682040
OTHER PRESENT:
GP SMT PREETHA K K
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 21155 OF 2025
2
2025:KER:79391
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
---------------------
W.P.(C).No.21155 of 2025
---------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of October, 2025
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-
"i. To issue a writ of certiorari order or other appropriate writ or direction quashing the Exhibit P10 order of the 1st respondent dated 5.3.2025. ii. To issue a writ of mandamus order or other appropriate writ or direction directing the 1st respondent to comply the directions issued as reflected in Ext.P7 Judgment dated 22.07.2013 in WP (C) No.15067/2013 of this Hon'ble Court and to consider and dispose Ext. P6 Application filed by the petitioner under the Kerala Land Utilisation order forthwith.
iii. To issue a writ of mandamus order or other appropriate writ or direction to the 2nd respondent to re assess the land tax of the petitioner's property under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act and to make necessary changes in the Basic Tax Register. iv. To issue any other writs order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.
WP(C) NO. 21155 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:79391 v. Petitioner may be permitted to dispense with the filing of transaction of the vernacular documents Court." (SIC)
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P10 order issued by the 1st respondent. The petitioner originally filed an application before the 1st respondent for change of user of land under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (for short "KLU order"), and Exts.P3, P4 and P5 reports were obtained by the 1st and 2nd respondents. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent has not taken any action to finalise the proceedings. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court directed the 1st respondent to consider the matter afresh. Even then, there is no action. Hence, the petitioner filed a Contempt of Court Case (c) No.413/2025 before this Court. Subsequently, the 1 st respondent passed the Ext.P10 order stating that the Ext.P6 petition filed by the petitioner cannot be treated as a petition under the KLU order. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the WP(C) NO. 21155 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:79391 learned Government Pleader.
4. I am sorry to say that the officer concerned flouted the directions issued by this Court. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the Ext.P9 judgment.
"2. Even though the said judgment on 22.07.2013, grievance of the petitioner is that, even now no orders have been passed. Later, when the petitioner approached the 1st respondent, the petitioner was asked to submit the application in Form-5 and accordingly, the petitioner submitted Ext.P9 application on 13.05.2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P9 application is already allowed on 13.12.2024. Now the relief sought by the petitioner is to pass orders on the application submitted by the petitioner as per Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order as directed by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment. The learned Government Pleader upon instruction submitted that the order on the application submitted by the petitioner under Clause-6 of KLU Order will be considered and orders will be passed within a period of one month.
In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to ensure that the orders on Ext.P6 are passed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."
[underline supplied].
WP(C) NO. 21155 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:79391
5. When the above writ petition came up for consideration, even though the learned Government Pleader submitted before this Court, that the order on the application submitted by the petitioner under clause 6 of the KLU order would be considered and orders would be passed, Ext.P10 order is passed by the 1st respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer stating that the application cannot be treated as an application in accordance with clause 6(2) of KLU order. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions of this Court in Mukthar Ali v. State of Kerala (2024 (6) KHC 187) and Tahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk and Another v. Renjith George (2020 (1) KHC 865). In Mukthar Ali's case (supra), this Court observed like this:-
"17. If the application has been submitted prior to 30/12/2017, the applicant has a legitimate expectation for consideration of his application. That legitimate expectation can be defeated only based on overriding larger public interest. The delay occasioned on the part of the Revenue Divisional Officer cannot result in the denial of legitimate expectation of such an applicant. WP(C) NO. 21155 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:79391 Legitimate expectation will not be available only when such action rests on public interest. The Apex Court in Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries [(1993) 1 SCC 71], Sethi Auto Service Station and Another v. Delhi Development Authority and Others [(2009) 1 SCC 180], Ram Pravesh Singh and Others v. State of Bihar and Others [(2006) 8 SCC 381] and Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India and Others [(1999) 4 SCC 727] invoked the doctrine of legitimate expectation when someone had relationship with authority concerned and upheld such expectation if it is reasonable, subject to any consideration outweighing larger public interest. In the absence of larger public interest, the public authority cannot deny consideration of the application filed before 30/12/2017 under KLU Order before the Collector. It is to be noted that no public interest is secured to be achieved by levying the fees.
18. Under S.27A(13) of the Paddy Act, it is stated as follows:
"Any application received for the change of nature of unnotified land from the date of the commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018 shall be considered and disposed of only in accordance with the provisions of the Act." The above fortifies WP(C) NO. 21155 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:79391 that Clause 6(2) application under KLU order will have to be considered and incorporation of S.27A does not bar the Collector in considering the pending applications and the bar is only to entertain applications after commencement of S.27A." [underline supplied].
In Tahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk's case (supra) also, this Court considered this point. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:-
" 10. Therefore, there can be no doubt with respect to the application of the said provision on and with effect from the date of introduction of the said provision into Act, 2008. Admittedly, the writ petitioner's land was not included in the data bank constituted as per Act, 2008, consequent to which he was not liable to file any application before the authorities constituted under Act, 2008. True, if it is an unnotified land as per the provisions of Act, 2008, after the introduction of S.27A, an application will have to be filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer seeking permission for utilisation of such lands for residential or commercial or other purposes. But, sub-Sections (1) and (2) of S.27A quoted above makes it abundantly clear that S.27A has only prospective effect from 30/12/2017. There WP(C) NO. 21155 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:79391 is no dispute that the application of the writ petitioner was prior to the introduction of S.27A to Act, 2008. Sub-S.13 of S.27A makes the situation more explicit and clear in the context, which read thus:
"Any application received for the change of nature of unnotified land from the date of commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land (Amendment) Act, 2018 shall be considered and disposed of only in accordance with the provisions of the Act."
11. Therefore, needless to say, any application received for the change of nature of unnotified land from the date of commencement of Amendment Act, 2018 shall be considered and disposed of only in accordance with the provisions of the Act. That apart, the legislature was certain, while introducing S.27A that the application submitted on or after the cut off date of 30/12/2017 alone need be considered in accordance with the provisions of S.27A of the Act, 2008 as amended by Act, 2018. Yet another predominant contention advanced by the learned Senior Government Pleader is relying upon S.27C, which deals with changes in record, and it reads thus:
"27C. Changes in records.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any WP(C) NO. 21155 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:79391 judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or any Authority, wherever a part of a survey number or subdivision is permitted to be converted under S.8, S.9, S.10 or 27A of this Act, a new subdivision shall be created for the extent for which such orders for conversion are issued.
(2) Where the paddy land or unnotified land is duly converted as per the provisions of this Act, the Tahsildar shall reassess the land tax under S.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 (13 of 1961) and make necessary entries in the revenue records relating to such lands. (3) Where such changes are recorded in revenue records, the number and date of the order and the authority granting sanction, the survey number of the lands for which sanction has been accorded, extent of the land in each survey number for which sanction has been accorded and the revised land tax shall be clearly recorded ensuring that the old entries are legible.
(4) Tahsildar shall conduct periodical inspection to ensure that changes in revenue records are in accordance with sub-section (3).
(5) No attempt shall be made to alter or change or modify the revenue records WP(C) NO. 21155 OF 2025 10 2025:KER:79391 relating to the paddy land or wetland or unnotified land otherwise than in accordance with sub-section (3)."
6. In the light of the above observations and also in the light of specific directions in Ext.P9, I failed to understand why the officer concerned issued Ext.P10 order. I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P10 is unsustainable and is an order passed in total violation of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment. Ext.P10 is to be set aside, and the officer concerned has to pass orders obeying the directions of this Court in Ext.P9.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
a) Ext.P10 is set aside.
b) The 1st respondent is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner treating it as an application in accordance to Clause 6(2) of the KLU order and pass appropriate orders in it, as directed by this WP(C) NO. 21155 OF 2025 11 2025:KER:79391 Court in Ext.P9 judgement, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
bng
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 24/10/25
Judgment dictated 24/10/25
Draft Judgment placed 24/10/25
Final Judgment 28/10/25
uploaded
WP(C) NO. 21155 OF 2025
12
2025:KER:79391
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21155/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED
10.05.2023
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF
THE DATA BANK EXTRACT
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER DATED
12.03.2013 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT HAVING NO. H3-
3712/13 DATED 21.03.2013 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.69/13 DATED 25.04.2013 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 05.07.2013 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP (C) NO.15067/2013 DATED 22.07.2013 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.04.2014 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP (C) NO.34237/2024 DATED 17.12.2024 EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 5.3.2025 EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE NO.413/2025 DATED 01.04.2025