Government authorities must comply with judicial directions impartially, and failure to do so may result in legal censure and cost penalties.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

As both these Writ Appeals deal with the same issue, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment.

2. WA No.1154 of 2025 impugns the order dated 04.03.2025 in RP No.660 of 2024, which in turn arises from WP(C).No.1397 of 2024. WA No.1170 of 2025, on the other hand, impugns the order dated 21.01.2025 in RP No.705 of 2024, which stems from WP(C).No.21925 of 2020.

3. WP(C).No.21925 of 2020 was preferred by the respondent herein, who had obtained the land in question under assignment deeds. In the said Writ Petition, the case of the respondent herein was that the land of the respondent was shown as paddy land in the revenue records, whereas it was actually reclaimed much prior to the coming into force of the KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT , 2008. The land was apparently converted after obtaining the necessary permissions from the competent authorities under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. The corresponding orders under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order were issued in the year 1995. It was when faced with a situation where, after the coming into force of the 2008 Act, the respondent could not mortgage the land on account of its erroneous categorisation as paddy land in the revenue records, that he approached this Court through WP(C).No.21925 of 2020 seeking directions to the revenue authorities to effect the necessary corrections in the revenue records.

4. A learned Single Judge, who considered the Writ Petition took note of the judgment of this Court in Renji K Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2019 (2) KLT 262 ] as also the judgment in Ipe Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2020 (5) KLT 403 ], together with the orders that had been obtained by the respondent/ his predecessor under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, and found that the land belonging to the respondent merited classification as a puramboke land. The respondent was, therefore, permitted to prefer an application for reassessment of the land and for correction of the classification of the said land in the revenue records as purayidom/dry land. The revenue authorities were also directed to consider the applications and to carry out the corrections as directed by the learned Single Judge.

5. It would appear that in purported compliance with the directions of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition referred above, the Tahsildar by an order dated 18.03.2021 (produced as Ext.P12 in WP(C).No.21925 of 2020) directed reclassification of the land as “Converted homestead” and ordered the collection of land tax based on the said category change. Finding that the said order passed by the Tahsildar was not in strict compliance with the directions in the judgment dated 03.11.2020 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C).No.21925 of 2020, the respondent herein once again approached this Court through WP(C).No.1397 of 2024. This time around, another learned Single Judge, who considered the Writ Petition found that the directions in the earlier judgment of this Court in WP(C).No.21925 of 2020 were clear and unambiguous inasmuch as it had directed a reassessment of the land as purayidom/dry land. The learned Judge, therefore, found that it was not open to the Tahsildar to have corrected the description as “converted homestead” or “land the character of which has been changed” etc. The learned Judge also observed that the action of the Tahsildar was mischievous. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, allowed the Writ Petition by quashing the order dated 18.03.2021 of the Tahsildar and directed him to pass a fresh order by assessing the land as Purayidom/dry land in terms of the directions in the earlier judgment dated 0