Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)Section 27A in Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Shahul Hameed vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 27 July, 2023
Similarly, on the strength of Shahul
Hameed v. Principal Secretary Local Self Government [2018
(1) KLT 1008], the petitioner asserts that permission is granted to
change the agricultural nature to some other purpose, whether it is
residential or commercial; the land loses its agricultural nature.
Consequently, the owner who utilizes the property for a non-
agricultural purpose cannot be restricted.
Puthan Purakkal Joseph vs The Sub Collector on 15 July, 2013
On the strength of the
decision in Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector [2015 (3)
KLT 182] it is contended that if a land is described as Nilam (paddy
2026:KER:6221
WP(C) No. 26322 of 2019
14
field) in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) but was converted long ago,
and there is no evidence of food crops being cultivated for three
consecutive years, restricting its utilization for non-agricultural
purposes would lead to a stalemate regarding the land's use. Even
according to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, a
converted land would not be covered under the Kerala Conservation
of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Consequently, the property
must be found to be governed solely by the provisions of the KLU
Order.
A.R.Sivadasan vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 25 February, 2008
In such circumstances, the contentions raised by the
petitioner on the strength of reported decisions that in Sivadasan
v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2017 (3) KLT 822], once
permission is granted under Clause 6(2), the said property can be
used for any other purpose. The Sub Collector cannot direct its use
only for certain purposes.
The Revenue Division Officer/ Sub ... vs Jacob Boban on 19 October, 2023
18. It is further contended, relying on the Full Bench decision
in Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector v. Jacob Boban
[2024 (5) KLT 588 (F.B.)], that Rule 12(17) is, in fact, intended to
obviate (render unnecessary) the procedure contemplated under
Section 27A of the Paddy Act when permission for other purposes
has already been granted by the Collector under the Kerala Land
Utilization Order (KLU Order). Consequently, the petitioner argues
that no fee can be levied in such a scenario. Conversely, the learned
Government Pleader contends, based on the judgment dated
23.11.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 27367 of 2023, that the proper remedy
2026:KER:6221
WP(C) No. 26322 of 2019
15
available to the petitioner is not direct recourse under Section 6 of
the Land Tax Act, but rather to approach the statutory authorities
under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act.
1