Kerala High Court
The District Collector vs Nizamudheen on 8 September, 2020
Author: Shaji P.Chaly
Bench: S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 17TH BHADRA, 1942
WA.No.1078 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18293/2018(J) OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C):
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD-682030.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
FORT KOCHI-682001.
3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE,
REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENOR, THE AGRICULTURAL
OFFICER, VAZHAKKALA-682021.
BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C):
NIZAMUDHEEN,
S/O. ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED 64 YEARS, THAZHEPEEDIKAYIL
HOUSE, THEVAKKAL, V.K. COLONY P.O., ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT-682021.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.09.2020, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No.1078 OF 2020 2
JUDGMENT
SHAJI P.CHALY,J Captioned writ appeal is filed by respondents in W.P.(C) No.18293/2018 challenging the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 22.7.2019. The subject issue arose under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 vis-v-vis the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland Act, 2008 and Rules thereto.
2. The writ petitioner along with others are owners of an extent of 28.7 Ares of property situated in re-survey Nos.22/6, 22/13, 22/14, 22/15 and 23/12 in Block No.9 of Vazhakkala Village, Kanayannore Taluk. The case projected by the writ petitioner was that the above said properties though were converted prior to the commencement of Act, 2008, they were still remaining in the Basic Tax Register as paddy field (Nilam). Therefore, when data bank was prepared under the provisions of Act, 2008, the properties were shown as converted land in the data bank. Thereupon, writ petitioner has submitted an application under section 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, evident from Ext.P1 dated 1.12.2016, seeking utilisation of the land for other purposes other than paddy cultivation and agricultural operations. Since the WA.No.1078 OF 2020 3 Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the competent authority under Land Utilisation Order, 1967 did not take any action, petitioner approached this Court and has secured Ext.P2 judgment dated 17.12.2016 in W.P.(C) No.40122/2016, whereby this Court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the application submitted after securing a report from the Kerala State Remote Sensing Environment Center (KSRSEC).
3. While the application was so pending, Act 2008 was amended and sections 27A to 27D were incorporated in the Act, 2008 to deal with the unnotified land and the application filed by such property owners for utilisation of the property for residential, commercial and for other purposes. Rules were also framed to deal with the situations. The amended provisions of Act, 2008 came into operation w.e.f.30.12.2017. Thus as specified in section 27A(13), any application received for the change of nature of unnotified land from the date of commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018 shall be considered and disposed of only in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2008. Section 27C is in respect of change of village records and the provisions of section 27C has got intrinsic relation and connection to the applications considered under section 27A of Act, 2008 as amended w.e.f.30.12.2017 and the village records can WA.No.1078 OF 2020 4 be corrected only in terms of the provisions of section 27C.
4. By the time, Revenue Divisional Officer has taken up the application of the writ petitioner for consideration the amended provisions as specified above came into force. But fact remains that the application submitted by the writ petitioner was dated 1.12.2016, much prior to the cut off date of 30.12.2017 fixed for the operation of sections 27A to 27D of Act,2008. However, the Revenue Divisional Officer has passed Ext.P3 order dated 10.4.2018 applying the provisions of section 27A(3) of Act, 2008 and directed the writ petitioner to remit the fair value of the land as prescribed in the amended provisions of section 27A(3) and consequential directions were issued in terms of the amended provisions. It was thus challenging the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the writ petition was filed.
5. The learned Single Judge after having taken into consideration the entire gamut of the issues and the amended provisions of Act, 2008 and the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 has arrived at the conclusion that the Revenue Divisional Officer was legally not correct in applying the amended provisions of the Act, 2008 since the application was much prior to the cut off date prescribed for operation of amended provisions. Therefore, set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer and directions WA.No.1078 OF 2020 5 issued in terms of section 27A of Act, 2008 as amended. Further consequential directions were issued to make necessary changes in the village records in respect of the present nature of the land without referring to the provisions of section 27A or 27C of Act, 2008 as amended.
6. The contention put forth by the appellants is that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge was in violation of rule 12(17) of Rules, 2008 which specifies to pay 25% of the land value specified in the schedule to be remitted in order to make any corrections to the Basic Tax Register and therefore, sought for interference.
7. We have heard learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri.Aravind Kumar Babu, and learned counsel, Sri.Sujith Mathew Jose, appearing for respondent and perused the pleadings and material on record.
8. The issue raised in this appeal was considered by this Court in various writ appeals and has held that the applications filed seeking utilisation of the land for other purposes other than paddy cultivation and agricultural operations prior to the cut off date of 30.12.2017 on which date the amended provisions of Act, 2008 came into force, have to be considered as per the provisions of clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. It is quite WA.No.1078 OF 2020 6 clear and evident that as per sub-section (13) of section 27A, the legislature intended that the applications received after the cut off date of 13.12.2017 alone need be considered as per the provisions of section 27A of Act, 2008. Admittedly the application of the writ petitioner was pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer on and w.e.f.1.12.2016, which is quite clear and evident from Ext.P2 judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the application. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that the grounds raised in the appeal against the said legal position cannot be sustained under law.
9. Yet another contention advanced by learned Senior Government Pleader is that the learned Single Judge has directed the revenue authorities to correct the Basic Tax Register without insisting for the conditions contained under section 27A and 27C to Act, 2008 as amended. The issue with respect to the deletion of the entry in the Basic Tax Register was considered by the Apex Court in Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi v. Jalaja Dileep [2015(1)KLT 984(SC)] and held that the original entry made in the Basic Tax Register in respect of nature of land cannot be altered. However, later a Division Bench of this Court in LLMC Kizhakkambalam v. Mariyumma [2015(2) KLT 516] has held WA.No.1078 OF 2020 7 that an additional entry is possible to be made in the Basic Tax Register in accordance with the present nature and lie of the land. Therefore, by retaining the original entry in the Basic Tax Register, additional entry is possible. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition by directing the revenue authority to carry out correction in the Basic Tax Register is intended only to make additional entry in the Basic Tax Register.
10. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the writ appeal need to be disposed of by making the clarification as above. Therefore, the writ appeal is disposed of clarifying that the direction of the learned Single Judge to the Revenue Authority to carry out correction in the Basic Tax Register is intended only to make an additional entry in the Basic Tax Register in respect of the present nature and lie of the property.
Writ appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
smv JUDGE