Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

These two writ petitions (civil) are disposed of on the basis of common judgment as identical issue is raised in these cases.W.P.(C.) No.8645/2020 is taken as a lead case for the purpose of convenience.

2. The case set up in the W.P.(C.) No.8645/2020 is as follows :

That the petitioner is the Director of 'SNEHA SISHRUSHALAYAM' which is a registered charitable society under the Travancore Cochin Literary, scientific and Charitable Societies Act. The petitioner is the holder and in possession of 146.09 Ares (360.98 Cents) of land in Cheranallor village. The 1st respondent District Collector had issued Ext.P1 KLU Order and granted permission, to utilize the above mentioned land covered by T.P.No.8124 of Cheranallor Village, for other purposes with some conditions. Later vide Ext.P3 Judgment the condition No.4 in Ext.P1 order was set aside by this Court and also directed the 2 nd respondent to take up Ext.P2 application and consider it in the light of Panchayath V.Mariumma, [2015(2) KLT 516], and issue appropriate orders by directing necessary additional entries in the BTR and revenue records, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the Judgment. Thereafter the 2nd respondent issued Ext. P5 order by directing the petitioner to pay 25% of the scheduled fee prescribed as per Rule 12(17) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy land and Wet Land rules. Ext.P5 order is illegal and against Ext.P3 Judgment and also against Judgments in Shanmugam V.District Collector 2019(2) KLT 45, and Tahsildar v. Renjith George, 2020(2) KLT 13.

7. In that regard, it has been held therein that it is well settled by a series of rulings of this Court as in Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2019 (3) KLT 838] that where the subject property has been converted as 'garden land' or 'purayidom' prior to 12.8.2008 (date of coming into force of the 2008 Act) and where the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order, 1967 has been preferred by the party concerned for conversion of the subject property on the basis of that rule, prior to 30.12.2017, which is the date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act which has introduced Sec.27A thereof, then such a party is entitled to get his case considered strictly in terms of the provisions contained in Rule (2) of the KLU order, 1967 and in such a case, the respondents do not have the jurisdiction or competence to stipulate that the said party should undergo the rigorous proceedings in terms of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, which has introduced Sec.27A thereof and though in such a case, where the party has filed the requisite KLU application before 30.12.2017, then he or she cannot be compelled to pay the higher amounts conceived as per the provisions of Sec.27A and the amended provisions of the Rules. Accordingly, this Court has quashed the said impugned condition No.4 in Ext.P1. Thus, now petitioner has obtained the requisite permission under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order for conversion of the subject property as 'garden land' or 'purayidom' and for its use for any non-agricultural purposes. This Court by Ext.P3 judgment has also specifically directed that such a party like the petitioner has preferred the said Rule 6(2) KLU application before 30.12.2017 is also legally entitled to maintain an application under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 for getting the subject property so as to subject the property to fresh assessment/re-assessment for securing additional entries in the BTR which shows the property as 'garden land' or 'purayidom' instead of the earlier BTR entries as 'Nilam' or 'paddy land' and in the light of the dictum in that regard was so categorically held and declared by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma [2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB)].

9. It is by now well settled by a series of rulings of this Court as in Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2019 (3) KLT 838], Renji K.Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2019 (2) KLT 262], Salim v. State of Kerala [2019 (3) KLT 604 (DB)] LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma [2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB)] that in a case where the subject property has been converted as 'garden land' or 'purayidom' prior to 12.8.2008 (date of coming into force of the 2008 Act) and where the party concerned has filed the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 for conversion of the property and for its use for any non-agricultural purposes, before 30.12.2017 (which is the date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, which has introduced Sec. 27A thereof), then the statutory revenue authorities are obliged the duty to treat such a case strictly within the purview of Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order, 1967 and in such a case, the party cannot be mulcted to pay the higher amounts conceived as per the amended provisions of the Act including Sec. 27A thereof, which has come into force on 30.12.2017 and the amended Rules framed thereunder. Further, it has also been categorically held by the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court as in Mariumma's case (supra) [2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB)] and Renjith's case (supra) [2020 (1) KHC 865(DB)] that in such a case where the property holder has filed application under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order before 30.12.2017, then the party is also equally entitled to maintain an application under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 for securing additional entries in the BTR to show the property as 'garden land' or 'purayidom' instead of the earlier BTR entries as 'nilam' or 'paddy land' and without having to pay the higher amounts conceived as per the amended provisions of the 2008 Act including Sec. 27A thereof and the amended Rules framed thereunder.

(c) To issue such other writ order or directions which are deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice."

17. Heard Sri.T.K.Ajithkumar (Valath), learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) appearing for all the respondents.

18. The matter in issue in this case is broadly identical and similar to that raised and decided in W.P.(C.) No.8645/2020. The reasonings given by this Court in the aforementioned judgment in W.P.(C.) No.8645/2020 will govern this case as well. In this case, it can be seen from Ext.P2 proceedings that the petitioner has indeed filed the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order, 1967 on 2.5.2017 before the 2 nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, which is before 30.12.2017 (which is the date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, which has included Sec.27A thereof). Further, the petitioner has also secured Ext.P2 order dated 2.7.2019 issued by the 2 nd respondent RDO getting permission under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order, 1967 for conversion of the subject property as garden land/purayidom and for its use for any non-agricultural purposes. The only difference in the facts and circumstances of this case is that in Ext.P2 order passed under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order by the 2nd respondent RDO has not insisted that petitioner should pay the higher amounts in terms of Sec.27A of the amended provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Whereas the 1 st respondent Tahsildar has stipulated in the impugned Ext.P6 order that for securing fresh assessment of the subject property in terms of Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 for making additional entries in the BTR to show the correct nature of the property as garden land/purayidom/dry land, the petitioner should necessarily pay the higher amounts in terms of the amended provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, the main issue raised in this case is broadly identical or similar to that raised in W.P.(C.) No.8645/2020 in which judgment has been rendered as hereinabove.