JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21st day of December, 2022 The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the omission of the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar (LR) in entertaining Ext.P5 Form-A application submitted by the petitioner for re- assessment of rate of Basic Tax of land and for making necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register.

2. The petitioner is owner of 185 Cents of property in Re-Survey No.72/10A of Kottooli Village in Kozhikode District. The predecessor-in-interest of the land approached the Revenue Divisional Officer invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 seeking to permit to use the land for non-agricultural purposes. The Revenue Divisional Officer passed Ext.P1 order under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 permitting to use the land for non-

agricultural purposes.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though Ext.P1 order was passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 in the year 1996, the land of the petitioner is not re-assessed for fixing rate of Basic Tax and the property of the petitioner is still described as paddy land in the Revenue records. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 application invoking Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 seeking to re-assess the Basic Tax and to make necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register. The Tahsildar, however, has not passed any orders on the application. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. The Senior Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The Senior Government Pleader controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is submitted that Ext.P1 proceedings are of the year 1996. The veracity and the genuineness of Ext.P1 proceedings under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 are liable to be verified. The present status of the land will also have to be ascertained, before re-assessment of Basic Tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents.

6. This Court has considered the issue of reassessment of land tax on the basis of the orders obtained under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 in the judgment in Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala and others [2020 (4) KLT 448]. This Court held that once enabling order is passed under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 permitting conversion of the land, then the earlier entries in the BTR showing the land as Nilam, Paddy Land, etc. will become superfluous and redundant and the competent Revenue officials like the Tahsildar are obliged under law to make a fresh assessment of the property under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961.

7. A Division Bench of this Court also considered the issue in District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others [2020 (4) KLT 612] and the Division Bench held that when an applicant has secured orders under the Kerala Land Utiliation Order prior to the cut-off date on which Section 27A was introduced to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the competent Revenue officials are bound to consider the subsequent application submitted under the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961.

8. As the nature of the land of the petitioner has been permitted to be changed pursuant to passing of a statutory order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, the competent authority is bound to re-assess the rate of Basic Tax in respect of the land and to make necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register, if necessary, after verifying the veracity/genuineness of the permission obtained under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 produced by the petitioner.

The writ petition is therefore allowed. The 2nd respondent-

Tahsildar(LR) is directed to consider Ext.P5 Form-A application submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders ther