IMPORTANT POINT
Application for change of user of the land received by the notified Collector before 30-12-2017 has to be considered only in terms of Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order and not in terms of Sec. 27A and the rules framed thereunder

JUDGMENT :

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

1. The prayers in the above Writ Petition (C) are as follows:

“(i) To issue a writ of certiorari and call for the records related to Ext. P4 and to quash the same.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus order or direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the application dated 25.09.2013 filed by the Petitioner under clause 6 (2) of The Kerala Land Utilisation Order 1967 forthwith.

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus order or other appropriate writ or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P5 application to re assess the Land tax under Sec. 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act and to correct the Basic Tax Register showing the subject property covered by Ext.P1 land tax, Ext. P3 judgment without insisting for payment of any fee as provided under section 27A (3) and Rule 12 (9) and Rule 12 (17) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008.

(iv) To declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any fees under the new act (Act 29 of 2018) as the said act is not applicable to the case of the petitioner as it has submitted application much before the introduction of the amended act 2018.

(v) To issue any other writs order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Smt. Anu S. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.J. Manu Raj, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the subject property, though continues to be described as ‘nilam/paddy land’ in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) has been converted as ‘garden land or purayidam’ long prior to 12-08-2008 (date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008). Further that the petitioner has filed the requisite application as early as on 25-09-2013 before the 1st respondent RDO, under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order and has also filed the consequential application on 25-09-2013 before the 22nd respondent Tahsildar seeking for alteration in the BTR to show the changed nature of the land as ‘garden land or purayidam.’ Since no action was being taken thereon the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition (Civil) as W.P. (C) No. 2763/2013, in which this Court has disposed of as per Ext.P3 judgment rendered as early as on 22-11-2013, whereby this Court has ordered that the said application dated 25-09-2013 [Ext.P4 in Ext.P3 W.P. (C)] shall be considered and decided by the respondent RDO strictly in terms of the provisions contained in Kerala Land Utilisation Order in order to enable the petitioner to use the property for any non-agricultural purposes, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

4. Thereafter the 1st respondent had passed Ext.P4 order dated 01-06-2014 ordering that since the decision of this Court in Jalaja Dileep vs. State of Kerala, has been challenged before the Apex Court, request in the said application dated 25-09-2013 filed by the petitioner (Ext.P4 in Ext.P3) will stand rejected etc. Now the petitioner has again filed Ext.P5 application dated 22-05-2020 before the 2nd respondent Tahsildar seeking for fresh assessment/ reassessment of the subject property in terms of Sec. 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, so as to secure additional entries in the BTR to show the changed nature of the land as ‘garden land or purayidam’ etc.

5. It is pointed out that petitioner has filed the requisite application under Rule 6 (2) of the KLU Order on 25-09-2013, which is well before the cut off date of 30-12-2017 (date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, which has introduced Sec. 27A thereof) and that therefore the said application dated 25-09-2013 (Ext.P4 in Ext.P3) has to be considered strictly in terms of Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order etc. It is in the above facts and circumstances that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with the afore