JUDGMENT

Dated this the 17 th day of January, 2022 The petitioner is the owner in possession of a total extent of

80.94 Ares of property, out of which 77.96 Ares of property in Re- survey Nos.236/5-4, 236/6, 236/9-1, 236/7-1, 236/8-1, 236/5 and 236/5-3 of Vijayapuram Village in Kottayam Taluk of Kottayam District is classified as 'Nilam' in the Basic Tax Register and is not included in the notified data bank. Ext.P5 is the order passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (for short, 'the KLU Order'). By Ext.P6, the petitioner had been required by the Tahsildar (Land Records) to obtain further orders under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, 'the 2008 Act) as amended. The petitioner has thereafter submitted Ext.P7 application before the 1st respondent and seeks a consideration of the same in terms of Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue stands squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in Geo Peter v. RDO, Muvattupuzha [2019 (4) KHC 400], Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki and others [2020 (5) KLT 403] and of a Division Bench of this Court in District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others [2020 (4) KLT 612]. It is submitted that the 1st respondent is duty bound to consider Ext.P7 application exercising powers under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act. It is submitted that necessary additional entries will have to be made in the Basic Tax Register maintained in terms of Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules to show the change in nature of the land and a reassessment will have to be effected in respect of the properties in question. It is submitted that the petitioner had also been required to remit the fees as required under the 2008 Act. The petitioner has also produced Ext.P8 judgment as well as Ext.P10 application submitted by him on which Ext.P5 order was passed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the entry to be made in the revenue records should not be as 'converted land', since there is no such classification of land as provided in the relevant enactments and that in view of the conversion duly carried out by the petitioner, the land should be shown as 'garden land/dry land/purayidom' in the altered Basic Tax Register.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. This Court, in the judgments referred to above by the petitioner, had held that in case of applications submitted under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order before the amendment was effected to the 2008 Act with effect from 30.12.2017, such applications are liable to be considered in terms of the KLU Order itself and further steps are liable to be taken under Section 6 of the Kerala Land Tax Act in accordance with law. In the instant case also, pursuant to Ext.P10 application submitted by the petitioner in November 2017 that Ext.P5 order was passed by the RDO specifically under the provisions of the KLU Order. In such circumstances, the contention of the 1st respondent that further steps have to be taken by the petitioner under Section 27A of the 2008 Act is completely untenable in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others and in the other judgments referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that Ext.P6 notice issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent is completely untenable. Ext.P6 is, therefore, set aside. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up and consider Ext.P7 application preferred by the petitioner, in the light of the judgments referred to above and pass appropriate orders after considering all relevant aspects of the matter including the nature and identity of the property and the fact whether the conversion had been carried out pursuant to Ext.P5 order. If the facts