Kerala High Court
George Mathew vs The Tahasildar (Land Records) on 2 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
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.5416 OF 2021(B)
PETITIONER:
GEORGE MATHEW,
AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. MATHEW GEORGE, VELLUKUNNEL,
VAZHAPALLY EAST MURI, VAZHAPALLY EAST VILLAGE,
CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 101
BY ADVS.
SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL
SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TAHASILDAR (LAND RECORDS),
TALUK OFFICE, CHANGANASSERY P.O, 686 001.
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, VAZHAPALLY EAST VILLAGE,
CHANGANASSERY TALUK-686 001
SRI. RAVI KRISHNAN GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 02.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WPC No.5416 of 2021 2
W.P.(C)No.5416 of 2021
------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Petitioner holds an item of land measuring 7.29 Ares in Vazhapally East Village. Although the land of the petitioner is shown in the revenue records as Nilam, the same was lying as a dry land when the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act) came into force. Earlier, the predecessor of the petitioner had obtained permission from the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order for making use of the larger area including the land which is now held by the petitioner, for other purposes. Ext.P1 is the order obtained by the predecessor of the petitioner in this regard. On 1.12.2020, the petitioner preferred an application before the first respondent for reassessing the land as dry land under the Kerala Land Tax Act and also for making appropriate corrections in the revenue records pertaining to the classification of the land. Ext.P5 is the application preferred by the petitioner for the said purpose. The grievance of the petitioner concerns the delay on the part of the first respondent in taking a WPC No.5416 of 2021 3 decision on Ext.P5 application.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that Ext.P5 application is not being disposed of by the first respondent as he maintains the stand that the petitioner has to obtain orders under Section 27A of the Act after remitting the prescribed fee, for the relief claimed in Ext.P5 application.
4. 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 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, the land of the petitioner is covered by an order under the Land Utilization Order long before 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 WPC No.5416 of 2021 4 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 the 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 Register so as to reflect the nature of the land as garden land/Purayidam in the said Register.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to ascertain whether the land of the petitioner is covered by Ext.P1 order and if so, reassess the same, treating it as Purayidam/dry land and issue appropriate orders directing the officers concerned to change the classification of the land in the Basic Tax Register and other revenue records as Purayidam/dry land. This shall be done within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE YKB WPC No.5416 of 2021 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H.301/95 DATED 16.08.1995 ISSUED BY THE RDO, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.
1026/2017 DATED 02.05.2017 OF S.R.O,
CHANGANASSERY.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 1028/2017
DATED 02.05.2017 OF SRO,
CHANGANASSERY.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
09.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
27.01.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT IN FORM A.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
25.02.2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.P.C NO. 28571/2020