J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 17th day of August, 2022 The petitioner is owner of 17.81 Ares of property comprised in Survey No.885/10-10 of Velloorkunnam Village of Muvattupuzha Taluk.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P5 and to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's application for reassessing the land tax treating the land as dry land and for making appropriate corrections in the Revenue records.

3. The petitioner states that he has invoked the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 and sought permission for using the land for non-agricultural purposes. By Ext.P3 proceedings dated 26.11.2015, the Revenue Divisional Officer granted permission to the petitioner to use the land for non-agricultural purposes specifically finding that the land is not suitable for paddy cultivation.

4. On receipt of Ext.P3 permission, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application before the Tahsildar for reassessment of land and for refixation of basic tax. On receipt of Ext.P4 application, the Tahsildar informed the petitioner that for making necessary changes in the nature of land in the BTR, the petitioner will have to invoke the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and the Rules made thereunder.

5. The petitioner argues that the petitioner has approached the Revenue Divisional Officer invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order prior to the introduction of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. A learned Single Judge of this Court has held in Ext.P6 judgment that in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be driven to invoke the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 for the purpose of making necessary changes in the BTR. Therefore, Ext.P5 is liable to be quashed, contends the petitioner.

6. The Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader opposed all the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition.

7. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that since the petitioner's land is described as paddy land in Revenue records, after the introduction of Section 27A, the petitioner will have to seek change of nature of the land in Revenue records, invoking the provisions of the Rules, 2008.

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

9. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has obtained Ext.P3 order invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 for using the land for non-agricultural purposes. In Ext.P3, there is a specific finding of the Revenue Divisional Officer that the land is not suitable at all for paddy cultivation. In similar circumstances, this Court has held that when permission is granted under the Kerla Land Utilisation Order for using the land for non-agricultural purpose, consequential changes will have to be made and tax will have to be reassessed by the Tahsildar under the Kerala Land Tax Act.

10. This Court finds that the issue raised by the petitioner is covered by Ext.P6 judgment as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Tahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk and another v. Renjith George [2020 (1) KHC 865] .

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed.

Ext.P5 is set aside and the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar is directed to consider the petitioner's application for reassessing the basic tax of the land covered by Ext.P2 in accordance with law. Orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of two months.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE smm/ 22.08.2022 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24426/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED

04/11/1994 OF MUVATTUPUZHA SRO.

Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED

22/06/2022 ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 26/11/2015 UNDER RULE 6(2) KLU ORDER.

Exhibit P4