Kerala High Court
Lijo Lonachan vs State Of Kerala on 27 November, 2020
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
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942
WP(C).No.26239 OF 2020(D)
PETITIONER:
LIJO LONACHAN
6C, PLEASANT HILL, MICRO WAVE STATION ROAD,
THRISSUR-680 001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.BASANT BALAJI
SMT.P.T.MARY
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR-680 003.
3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
THRISSUR-680 003.
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, CHEMBUKKAV,
THRISSUR-680 020.
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PERINGAVU VILLAGE OFFICE, UDAYA NAGAR,
CHEMBUKKAV,
THRISSUR-680 005.
SRI.K.J.MANURAJ - GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.26239 OF 2020(D)
2
W.P.(C) No.26239 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
The petitioner holds an item of land measuring 9.53 Ares in Peringavu Village. The land of the petitioner is classified as "Nilam" in the revenue records. As per Exts.P3 and P4 orders, the petitioner has been granted permission by the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order for making use of the land for other purposes. Ext.P7 is the application preferred by the petitioner before the fourth respondent for reassessing the land as a 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. It is alleged by the petitioner that orders are not being passed on Ext.P7 application. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.
WP(C).No.26239 OF 2020(D) 3
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fourth respondent maintains the stand that the petitioner has to comply with the requirements of Act 29 of 2018 in terms of which Sections 27A and 27C were introduced to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008(the Act). According to the learned counsel, insofar as the petitioner has obtained permission from the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order long prior to Act 29 of 2018, the provisions therein cannot be pressed into service in the case of the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed for a direction to the fourth respondent to consider Ext.P7 application untramelled by the provisions contained in Act 29 of 2018.
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 WP(C).No.26239 OF 2020(D) 4 the land for other purposes under the Land Utilization Order before the coming into the force of Act 29 of 2018, the provisions therein, including Sections 27A and 27C, cannot be pressed into service against such a land. In the case on hand, it is seen that the petitioner obtained permission under the Land Utilization Order during the year 1993 itself and Act 29 of 2018 came into force only with effect from 30.12.2017. 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 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 WP(C).No.26239 OF 2020(D) 5 Register.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the fourth respondent to reassess the land of the petitioner treating the same 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 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
PV WP(C).No.26239 OF 2020(D) 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO 1940/2019 DATED 24.7.2019 EXECUTED BY THE PARENTS OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF EXT P1 PROPERTY FOR THE YEARS 2020-2021 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO KDIS-5526 DATED 10.5.1993 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF 71/2 CENTS OF PROPERTY IN SY NO 478/4 OF PERINGAVU VILLAGE EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO KDIS-
5815/1993 DATED 14.5.1993 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE DATA BANK OF PERINGAVU VILLAGE IN RESPECT OF SY NO 478.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 30.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICE IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 23.10.2020 ALONG WITH FORM A SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT