IMPORTANT POINT
Whether the property covered by the said application filed under Section 6A of-the Kerala Land Tax Act, is the same as the one covered by ExtP-4 appellate order dated 16.10.1995 issued by the Board of Revenue under Rule 11 of the KLU Order and also the details regarding Ext.P-4 order. It is found that the subject property covered by the said application filed under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act is the same as the one covered by Ext.P-4, then the said request will have to be allowed

JUDGMENT :

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

1. The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:-

The petitioner is the absolute owner and is in possession and enjoyment of 2.80 Ares of land in R.S. No. 275/8 and 1.20 Ares of land in R.S. No. 279/2 of ongallur II Village. The said property was a Nilam and in terms of the orders passed by the Board of Revenue, Kerala it was converted into a Purayidom in 1995. Based upon the orders passed by the Board of Revenue and in view of the conversion of the property the said property was not included in the land data bank prepared and notified. But the 7th respondent rejected the request of the petitioner for construction of building in the said property. Therefore the petitioner filed an application before the 3rd respondent seeking to make necessary classification of the property in the Basic Tax Register. Since the same was not considered the petitioner approached this Court by filling W.P. (C) No. 21977/ 2018 which was disposed by Ext.P-12 judgment directing the 3rd respondent herein to consider the petition in accordance with the direction contained in the said judgment. But contrary to that the third respondent passed Ext.P-14 order fixing the fair value of the property and by Ext.P-15 directed the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs. 3,14,820/-

It is in the light of the above factual averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:-

“(i) Call for the records leading to issue Ext. P 14 and P 15 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the third respondent to re consider the petitioner’s application afresh and pass orders in terms of the dicta laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Ext. P16 judgment ordering necessary alterations in the revenue records including Basic Tax Register showing the petitioner’s property as garden land/purayidam instead of nilam without insisting to pay any amount as for the amended provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2018 and the Rules framed there under, within a time frame as fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

(iii) Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard Sri. P.N. Mohannan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 6 and Sri. R. Sreehari, learned standing Counsel appearing for the 7th respondent (Ongallur Grama Panchayat).

3. The case of the petitioner is that the subject property, though continues to be described as ‘nilam/paddy land’ was converted as ‘garden land/purayidom’ long prior to 12.08.2008 (date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008) and that as a matter of fact the petitioner’s predecessor, who owned the said property had filed an application before the 3rd respondent-Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottappalam, seeking for permission for change of user of the land under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, (for short the KLU Order) as early as in the year 1993 and the same was rejected as per order No. KDis.2124/93 dated 13.08.1993 (referred to as item No. 1 in Ext.P-4. Being aggrieved by the said rejection order issued by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner’s predecessor had challenged the same by filing appeal in terms of Rule 11 of the KLU Order before the Board of Revenue as per appeal petition dated 17.11.1993 (referred to as item No. 2 in Ext.P-4). Thereupon, the Board of Revenue (Appellate Authority) had called for a report of the 3rd respondent-Sub Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, who had furnished report no. H.451/94 dated 21.12.1994 in the matter (referred to as item No. 3 in Ext.P-4). Thereafter the petitioner’s predecessor was heard in detail by the Board of Reve