Point of Law: Revenue records as dry land - Permission to make use of land for other purposes - Lands which are classified as 'Nilam' in revenue records, but not included as paddy lands in data bank prepared under Act, were still governed by KLU order and since petitioner could not secure permission of competent authority under KLU order to make use of land for other purposes, she could seek reassessment of land under Land Tax Act or reclassification of land only based on permission of competent authority under Section 27A of Act.

JUDGMENT :

Petitioner owns an item of land measuring 39.37 cents in resurvey Nos.136/1, 136/2, 136/8-1 and 136/13 of Peringanad Village. Though the said land is classified in the revenue records as 'Nilam', the same has not been included as paddy land in the data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). Nevertheless, the application preferred by the petitioner for building permit to construct a building in the land has been turned down by the local authority on the ground that building cannot be constructed on a land which is shown in the revenue records as 'Nilam'. Though the petitioner applied to the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 [the KLU order] thereafter for permission to make use of the land for other purposes, the said request was turned down by the competent authority on the ground that permission cannot be granted in respect of a land which has already been converted. The petitioner challenged the decision of the competent authority under the KLU order before this court in W.P.(C) No.29182 of 2014, and the said writ petition was disposed of holding that permission of the competent authority under the KLU order is not necessary to make use of a land which has been converted prior to the Act. Ext.P1 is the judgment in the said case. In the light of Ext.P1 judgment, the petitioner obtained building permit and put up buildings as proposed by her in the land. It is alleged by the petitioner that though she could make use of the land for other purposes in the light of Ext.P1 judgment, the land is not being accepted as security by her bank for the financial facility sought by her since its classification in the revenue records continues to be 'Nilam'. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an application before the first respondent, the competent authority under the Kerala Land Tax Act for reassessment of the land as dry land and for directions to the revenue officials to change the classification of the land as dry land. Ext.P5 is the application preferred by the petitioner in this regard. On Ext.P5 application, the petitioner has been issued Ext.P6 communication by the first respondent informing her that in order to change the classification of the land, the petitioner has to obtain permission of the competent authority under Section 27A of the Act. Ext.P6 communication is under challenge in the writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that insofar as the land of the petitioner was lying as a dry land when the Act came into force and in so far as it was declared by this court in Ext.P1 judgment that permission of the competent authority under the KLU order is not necessary for the petitioner to make use of the land for other purposes, the competent authority under the Kerala Land Tax Act is duty bound to re-assess the land as dry land and issue necessary directions to the revenue officials to reclassify the land as dry land.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader submitted that in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Revenue Division Officer v. Jalaja Dileep, 2015(1) KLT 984(SC), lands which are classified as 'Nilam' in the revenue records, but not included as paddy lands in the data bank prepared under the Act, were still governed by the KLU order and since the petitioner could not secure permission of the competent authority under the KLU order to make use of the land for other purposes, she could seek reassessment of the land under the Land Tax Act or reclassification of the land only based on the permission of the competent authority under Section 27A of the Act. Ext.P6 communication is therefore in order, submits the learned Government Pleader.

5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties on either side.

6. In Jalaja Dileep, the Apex Court has held that if a lan