Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.
JAMNA NIZAMUDHEEN, W/O. NIZAMUDHEEN – Petitioner
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) NO. 41944 OF 2023, WP(C) NO. 6986 OF 2024
Decided On : 06-03-2024
(A) Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 - Clause 6(2) - Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 - Section 6A - Petitioners sought permission for non-agricultural use of land, which was denied by the Tahsildar citing ecological concerns and improper application. The court held that the Tahsildar exceeded jurisdiction by rejecting the application without proper assessment. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 7)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that once an enabling order is granted under the KLU Order, the Tahsildar is obliged to reassess land tax under the Land Tax Act. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, husband and wife, sought to utilize their land for non-agricultural purposes after obtaining permission under the KLU Order, but their application for tax reassessment was rejected by the Tahsildar.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Tahsildar acted beyond jurisdiction and set aside the rejection order, directing a fresh assessment within six weeks.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Tahsildar had the authority to reject the application for tax reassessment after the KLU Order was granted.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Tahsildar must comply with the KLU Order and cannot deny reassessment based on prior land classification.
Result: Ext.P3 orders set aside; fresh orders to be passed within six weeks.
JUDGMENT :
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.
Since common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. The status of the parties referred to hereinafter will be as appears in W.P.(C) No.41944 of 2023.
2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are husband and wife. They have obtained orders under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KLU Order' for short) for utilising the properties other than for agricultural purposes (house construction). Pursuant thereto, the petitioners filed application under clause 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) read with Rule 5(ii) of the Kerala Land Tax Rules, for fixing the land tax and for making necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register. The Thahsildar rejected the said application by Ext.P3. Ext.P3 in both writ petitions is similarly worded.
3. The petitioners have made available a copy of the English translation of Ext.P3 proceedings of the 2nd respondent Tahsildar, which is extracted hereunder:
As per the directions from the Hon'ble High Court referred as item no.1 the RDO has granted permission under cl. 6(2) of KLU Order referred as item No.2 for using the property for any other purposes in Re. survey no.154/14 having an extent of 07.22 ares. The applicant has filed an application to refix the land tax as per reference no.3 and filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High court as per reference No.4.
The Hon'ble High court has directed to consider the application within one month. A Notice refered as item No. 6 has been issued to the petitioner to appear for a personnel hearing scheduled on 10.10.2022 but there was no appearance for the petitioner
As per ref.No.8 the Village officer has reported that the subject property is in the name of the petitioner and it is lying at Manakkapadu Junction, Sea-Port Air port road near to CISF quarters without proper boundaries and lying as water logged.
As per ref.No.7 the Agricultural officer has reported that he had conducted a joint inspection with the village officer and it was found that the property and adjacent properties are lying as fallow land with full of grass and water logged. It was also observed that the boundaries of the property were not fixed and there is no road to enter into the property. The property is included in the databank and it can be made suitable for paddy cultivation after making some changes. Therefore if permission is granted to use the property for any other purposes, it will lead to ecological problems and obstruct the free flow of water, therefore the LLMC has decided not to give permission to use the property for non-agricultural purposes.
FINDINGS
1. As per the BTR the total extent of property comprised in Block No.10 in Re survey no.154/4 in Thiruvankulam village in Kanayannur taluk is 72.30 ares the said property is included as nilam in BTR.
2. It is reported by the village officer that as per the Thandaper register of Thiruvankulam village, the petitioner Jamna is having properties in Thandaper account 12280, comprised in survey no 154/4-1-3 having an extent of 06.71 Ares.
3. The property of the Petitioner is situated at Thripunithura municipality. The petitioner is paying the property tax as per the rate fixed in the municipality. The government has collected the property tax not on the basis of description of the property as 'nilam' or purayidam but on the basis of the property, whether it is situated in panchayath, municipality or corporation and the land owners are paying the tax as per the rate fixed by the government. Therefore there is no benefit to the government if the tax is re-fixed.
4. In the KLU order the RDO has incorporated a condition that this order is not for changing the nature of the land in the BTR.
5. The property of the petitioner and adjacent properties are lying as fallow land with
The Tahsildar exceeded jurisdiction by rejecting the application for land tax reassessment after KLU Order approval, necessitating a fresh assessment.
An enabling order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order mandates reassessment of land tax, overriding previous classifications.
Tax re-assessment is mandatory under Section 6A when land use conversion is permitted under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order.
When applications are made before a specific cut-off date but permissions are granted after that date due to administrative delays or processes beyond applicants' control, they should not be subject ....
Once land-use permission is granted under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, it necessitates reassessment of Basic Tax irrespective of prior land classification.
Absence of records does not preclude recognition of prior land usage orders; petitioners must be allowed to substantiate claims for reassessment.
The court emphasized the need for property identification before evaluating applications related to land assessment under specific statutes.
The court established that land classification changes require proper authority and documentation, and the Tahsildar cannot unilaterally change land classification without following the prescribed le....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
