Absence of records does not preclude recognition of prior land usage orders; petitioners must be allowed to substantiate claims for reassessment.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 21st day of December, 2022 The petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by Ext.P23 order dated 24.06.2022 issued by the 2nd respondent- Tahsildar (LR). By Ext.P23 order, the application submitted by the petitioners under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act , 1961 stands rejected for the reason that the proceedings under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order , 1957, based on which reassessment of Basic Tax is sought, is not available on the records of the respondents.

2. The petitioners state that they are life partners and co-owners of 2.83 Ares of land in Re-Survey No.111/4 of Vazhakala Village. The 1st petitioner independently owns 4.16 Ares of land in Re-Survey No.111/4 and 1.96 Ares in Re-Survey No.111/4 of Vazhakala Village. These lands are lying contiguously.

3. The petitioners state that they submitted Exts.P19 and P21 Form A applications before the 2nd respondent- Tahsildar (LR) seeking to reassess the Basis Tax on the land in question. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the property is covered by Order No.K.Dis-5094/95/K dated 24.05.1996 issued by the 1st respondent invoking Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. In view of the said order obtained by the predecessors in interest of the petitioners, the land is liable to be reassessed for fixing the rate of Basic Tax, contends the petitioners.

4. However, to the surprise and predicament of the petitioners, the Tahsildar has issued Ext.P23 order rejecting the application for reassessment of tax submitted by the petitioners on the ground that in respect of the claimed KLU order, the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar has not informed of any information as to existence of such order. Ext.P23 further states that the Tahsildar has taken steps to get information regarding Exts.P4 and P5 receipts and notice. However, no information has been received. It is in such circumstances that Ext.P23 has been passed rejecting the application of the petitioners.

5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P3 is not liable to be interfered with on any of the grounds urged by the petitioners. The petitioners have failed to produce the proceedings alleged to have been passed under the KLU Order,1957, permitting the use of the land in question for non- agricultural purposes. Inspite of earnest efforts taken by the Tahsildar, any proceedings under the KLU Order, 1957 relating to the land of the petitioners could not be traced out. It is due to insufficiency of materials available that the application stands rejected.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader representing the respondents.

7. A reading of Ext.P23 would show that the application submitted by the petitioner for reassessment of land stands rejected due to the inability of the 2nd respondent- Tahsildar to ascertain the existence of any proceedings under the KLU Order, 1957 dated 24.05.1996. I am of the view that since an order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order is to be issued from the Office of the Revenue authorities, definitely the order should be maintained in the Revenue records. A KLU order issued to a predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners cannot always be in the possession of the petitioners. It cannot be expected so.

8. In this case, the petitioners have produced Ext.P4 receipt, whereby the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest has paid Land Conversion Tax. Ext.P4 contains the number of the KLU order, based on which the remittance has been made. The petitioners are in possession of Ext.P5 notice also, whereby the Village Officer has required the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners directing into comply with the conditions stipulated in the KLU Order. Exts.P4 and P5 would prima facie show the existence of proceedings under the KLU Order. The 1st petitioner states that he is in possession of the originals of Exts.P4 and P5. In view of the above facts, Ext.P23 order is liable to be reconsidered.

Ext.P23 is, th