IMPORTANT POINTS
The property has been converted as garden land/ purayidom much prior to 12.8.2008 which is the date of coming into force of the 2008 Act and as the petitioner has submitted the requisite Rule 6(2) KLU application before the cut off date of 30.12.2017, it is only to be ordered that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of re-assessment/fresh assessment in terms of Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961.

JUDGMENT :

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 2nd 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.

3. It is in the light of these averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed the instant W.P.(C.) No. 8645/2020 with the following prayers :

(i) “issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P5 and quash the same.

(ii) Declare that 146.09 Ares (360.98 Cents) of lands comprised in Re.Sy.Nos.418/7, 418/8, 419/1, 419/2, 421/7, 421/8, 418/11, in Block No.4 of Cheranalloor Village, covered by Thandaper No.8124 of Cheranalloor village, Kanayannoor Taluk is 'Puryidam/Dry land.

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 Application and issue an order, on the basis of Ext.P1 and Ext.P3, to make necessary additions and correction in the BTR and revenue records with respect to 146.09 Ares (360.98 Cents) of land comprised in Re.Sy.Nos.418/7, 418/8, 419/1, 419/2, 421/7, 421/8, 418/12, 418/11, in Block No.4 of Cheranalloor Village, covered by Thandaper No.8124 of Cheranalloor Village, Kanayannoor Taluk as “Puryidam/Dry land.

(iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to issue order/direction to the 3rd respondent Village Officer, Cheranalloor Village, to make the corrections in the BTR and other revenue records with respect to 146.09 Ares (360.98 Cents) of land covered by Thandaper No.8124 of Cheranalloor Village as “Puryidam/Dry land.

(v) grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of this case including the cost of this Writ Petitioner.”

4. Heard Sri.P.K.Soyuz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) appearing for all the respondents.

5. There are no serious factual disputes that the subject property of the petitioner involved in this case was converted as ‘garden land’ or ‘purayidom’ long prior to 12.8.2008 (date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008). Further, there is no dispute that the petitioner had in fact filed the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 on 3.11.2017 (referred to as paper No.1 in Ext.P1) before the 1st respondent District Collector. This Court as per judgment dated 15.11.2017 rendered in W.P.(C.) No.36717/2017 filed by the petitioner herein and directed the res