JUDGMENT :

[Shaji P. Chaly, J.]

1. The above appeal is preferred by respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. (C) No. 7575 of 2021 challenging the judgment of a learned single Judge dated 24.03.2021, whereby the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition as follows :

“Seeking re-assessment of tax and correction in the Basic Tax Register regarding the nature of property, the petitioner has filed Ext P3 application before the 2nd respondent. Permission to convert the user of land was granted to the petitioner under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 as is evidenced by Ext P2, the proceedings of the Land Revenue Commissioner.

The petitioner is required to submit an application in Form A as required under the Kerala Land Tax Rules. On the petitioner filing such a petition, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same along with Ext P3, ascertain the property covered under Ext P2, and pass appropriate orders, expeditiously. Let orders be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge, the appeal is filed.

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

According to the respondent/writ petitioner, the predecessor in interest of the property of the petitioner filed an application under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 even before the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (‘Act, 2008’ for short) and secured Exhibit P2 order. As per the proceedings of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram, an extent of 1.0027 hectares in R.S. No.795, 3.5578 hectares in R.S. No.797/1 and 1.1097 hectares in R.S. No. 797/1 of Manakunnam Village, Kanayannur Taluk was permitted to be converted. Thereafter, the petitioner has submitted Exhibit P3 application dated 27.01.2021 seeking re-assessment of the land tax of the property covered by Exhibit P2 order; but, no action has been taken on the said application by the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk, the second appellant. It is, thus, seeking appropriate directions, the writ petition was filed.

3. The learned single Judge, after considering the rival submissions, has allowed the writ petition and directed to re-assess the land tax in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and the Kerala Land Tax Rules, 1972 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

4. The paramount contention advanced by the appellants in the writ appeal is that the property in question is included in the data bank prepared as per the provisions of the Act, 2008. It is further pointed out that the learned single Judge has disposed of the writ petition before a counter affidavit could be filed by the appellants, and without taking note of the law that once a property is included in the data bank, as per the Act, 2008, then necessarily the land cannot be re-assessed, without removing the same from the data bank.

5. It is further pointed out that the learned single Judge has not considered Section 14 of the Act, 2008, which prohibits any construction in the paddy land and wetland. Other contentions are also raised. Be that as it may, in the appeal, it is stated that since a contempt petition was filed for non-adherence to the directions issued a contempt petition, C.O.C 1816 of 2021 was filed, consequent to which Annexure 1 produced along with the appeal was passed, declining reassessment of land tax.

6. We have heard the learned Special Government Pleader Sri. S. Renjith for the appellants, and Sri. Aravinda Kumar Babu T.K for respondent, and perused the pleadings and material on record.

7. Apparently, on the basis of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 7575 of 2021 filed by the respondent, this Court has directed the Tahsildar to take a decision in the application submitted by the writ petitioner under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. The