State of Kerala vs Shaji N.T. S/o Koyakkutty

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(Ker) 3053

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, HARISANKAR V. MENON, JJ.
State of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
Shaji N.T. S/o Koyakkutty – Respondent
W.A. No. 152 of 2024
Decided On : 15-10-2025

Important Points

Compliance with Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act is not mandatory for land converted and lawfully used prior to its enactment.

Subject

Land Law - Land Use and Re-assessment

Act Referred

KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND ACT : S.27(a), S.27(a)(1), S.27(a)(13)
KERALA CONSERVATION OF PADDY LAND AND WET LAND RULES : R.12(17)
KERALA LAND UTILISATION ORDER : Cl.6(2)

Headnote

In this judgment, the court examined the application of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, particularly in relation to land previously converted for residential purposes. The respondent, who purchased a property developed into a residential building, sought re-assessment of the land's classification under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. The Single Judge directed that the authority must re-assess the land under the Act considering that it engaged in legal use prior to Section 27A's provisions. The main issue raised was whether the mandatory compliance with Section 27A was applicable given that the land was converted before the section’s implementation. The court found that the law's intention amidst ongoing regulations clarified that such prior legal constructions are exempt from current requirements, allowing for re-assessment under the Land Tax Act without following the process established by Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act. The appeal stands dismissed as there was no justification found to overturn the Single Judge's ruling.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : K.P. Jayachandran
For the Respondents: Thomas John Ambooken, B. Sajeev Kumar

Table of Content
1. overview of the property acquisition and use. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. past legality and judicial interpretation on land usage. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 12 , 13)
3. re-assessment feasibility under current legal frameworks. (Para 7 , 14)
4. legal requirements under section 27a of the paddy land act. (Para 10 , 11)
5. final ruling and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 15)

JUDGMENT :

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The respondent purchased a residential property in 2005, situated in Eloor Village, Paravur Taluk, having an extent of 2.43 Ares. The building in the property had been constructed in 1999 by the respondent’s predecessor-in-title. The Panchayat assigned a building number, and the Tahsildar assessed and collected building tax.

2. It is undisputed that the land continues to be described as ‘Nilam’ (paddy land) in the Basic Tax Register (BTR), except for the area occupied by the building; hardly any vacant land remains.

3. The respondent approached the Revenue authorities seeking re-assessment of the land as ‘purayidom’ under the Kerala Land Tax Act , 1961 (hereinafter “the Act, 1961”). Such re-assessment would have been straightforward but for the legal bar created by Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 (hereinafter “the Paddy Land Act”), which came into force on 30.12.2017.

4. Since the respondent’s application was filed only in 2021, the authorities maintained that in view of Section 27A (13) of the Paddy Land Act, which requires all applications for change of nature of unnotified land made after 30.12.2017 to be dealt with strictly under the Paddy Land Act, the request for re-assessment under the Act, 1961 could not be considered unless a separate application was made under Section 27A (1) of the Paddy Land Act.

5. The learned Single Judge, relying on the decision of this Court in Global Education Trust v. State of Kerala and Others [ 2020 (6) KLT 738 ], held that the construction of the building was not illegal and directed the authorities to re-assess the land under the Act, 1961. The State has preferred this appeal challenging the said direction.

6. The primary question that arises for determination is whether compliance with Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act is mandatory in a case where the land had already been converted and used for residential purposes prior to the incorporation of that provision.

7. A reading of Section 27A (1) of the Paddy Land Act shows that it applies where the owner of the land intends to utilise paddy land for residential, commercial, or other purposes, requiring prior permission from the Revenue Divisional Officer. The section does not deal with land that has already been converted and used without such permission, in accordance with the Kerala Land Utilisation Order , 1967 (hereinafter “KLU Order”), before the provision came into effect.

8. Under Rule 12(17) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, landowners who had regularised conversion prior to Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act, by obtaining orders under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order, were liable to pay only 25% of the prescribed fee. However, this levy was struck down by this Court in District Collector, Ernakulam and Others v. Fr. Jose Uppani and Others [2020 (4) KHC 394].

9. The position of law was subsequently clarified by a Full Bench in Mukthar Ali v. State of Kerala [2024 (6) KHC 187], which held as follows:

“20. ... In conclusion, we declare as follows :

(i) The power of the Collector cannot be exercised under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order in respect of the applications filed after 30/12/2017. The applications filed prior to 30/12/2017 will have to be considered for passing orders under Clause 6(2) of the Land Utilisation Order in the light of law declared by Division Bench in Thomas V. J.'s case (supra).

(ii) The assessment of land tax under S.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act based on the order for utilisation of the land shall only be in accordance with S.27A of th