Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 36341
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
SULEKHA BEEVI, – Appellant
Versus
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, – Respondent
WP(C)/32412/2019
BABU KARUKAPADATH, SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU, SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR, SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN, SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH, SMT.KADIJA JASMINE
Once land use conversion is authorized, administrative records must reflect this change in alignment with relevant laws, emphasizing the statutory obligation to update classifications accordingly.
Headnote:
Land Use - Land Conversion - Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967; Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961; Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - The court emphasized that once permission for land use is granted, it must be reflected in the Basic Tax Register, correcting classifications as per statutory provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners owned property in Ernakulam District and sought to convert it for non-agricultural use. After a series of court rulings and administrative orders, they challenged the retention of their land's classification as Nilam in the Basic Tax Register despite receiving conversion permission.
Issues: Whether the administrative order retaining the land classification as Nilam, despite conversion permission, was lawful and in accordance with the Kerala Land Tax and Utilisation laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that an administrative directive cannot override statutory mandates requiring the updating of land classifications following formal conversion orders, thus invalidating the restrictive conditions of the administrative order.
Final Decision: The court set aside the administrative order and directed the authorities to update the land classification to reflect its status as dry land/Purayidom.
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) call for the records leading to Exhibits P4 and P6 (ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing condition Nos. 1 to 3 in Exhibit P4 and also Exhibit P6 to the extent to which, the classification of the land is retained as Nilam itself in Form B Provisional Notice of Demand and also in the BTR and entering in the Remarks column of Thandaper Register that permission has been granted for conversion of user for non-agricultural purposes on conditions, as per Order dated 26/09/2019 of the 1st respondent under the Clause 6 (2) of the KLU Order;
iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to enter the classification of land having an extent of 33.500 cents in Survey Nos. 372/1 and 372/2 A-2 of Alangad Village in Paravur Taluk in Ernakulam District belonging to the petitioners, as garden land / purayidom early as possible in the B.T Register/ Thandaper Register by making appropriate additions and assess the Land Tax accordingly, treating it as purayidom;”
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the owners in possession of 33.500 cents of property in Survey Nos.372/1 and 372/A-2 of Alangad Village, Paravur Taluk, Ernakulam District. It is submitted that the petitioners had submitted application for permission to use the property for other purposes under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order . When the said application was not considered, the petitioners had approached this Court and Ext.P1 judgment had been issued. This Court had directed the consideration of the application made by the petitioners after consideration of all relevant aspects. It is submitted that Ext.P2 proceedings had been issued permitting the user of the land for other purposes, however further directing the petitioners to make an application under Section 27A. The petitioners had again approached this Court challenging the said requirement and Ext.P3 judgment was issued stating that the application is liable to be considered under the , 1967 and not under the provisions of Section 27A of the 2008 Act. Thereafter, Ext.P4 order was passed permitting the use of the property for other purposes. However, it was stated in Ext.P4 that the said order would not automatically permit the alteration in the Basic Tax Register.
4. The petitioners filed a Contempt of Court Case. This Court, by Ext.P5 judgment held that the petitioners would have to file an application under Form A for the correction of the Basic Tax Register in terms of the Kerala Land Tax Act and that therefore there is no contempt. The petitioners thereupon submitted such an application. However, on the ground that Ext.P4 order is a conditional order, Ext.P6 was passed by the 2nd respondent retaining the category of the property in the BTR as Nilam but adding in the remarks column that permission had been granted by the Sub Collector for use of the property for other purposes subject to conditions. The learned counsel for the petitioners challenge the said findings in Ext.P6. It is submitted that this Court in several decisions including inTahsildar v. Renjith George [2020 (2) KLT 13] and in District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others [ 2020 (4) KLT 612 ] has specifically held that where a change in the BTR is liable to be carried out in terms of Section 6A of the , the converted property is to be recorded as Purayidom/dry land in the Basic Tax Register and there cannot be a retention of the property as Nilam with remarks in the remarks column of the revenue records.
5. The learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P4 is only a conditional order. It is further submitted that the specific condition provided in Ext.P4 that the order cannot be put to use for effecting alteration
