JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13th day of July, 2022 The petitioner, who is holding 2.82 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.3/81P (Old Survey Nos.673/1 and 673/2) in Block No.50 of Vilvattom Village in Thrissur District, has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P2 and to direct the 5th respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 application filed by the petitioner under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1961’).

2. The petitioner states that the petitioner submitted an application invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 seeking permission to utilise the land for other purposes. The Sub Collector, Thrissur thereupon passed Ext.P2 order on 20.04.2018 permitting the petitioner to use the land for other purposes. Ext.P2 stipulated certain conditions. One of the conditions was that for construction of any building in the land, the petitioner will have to abide by Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2008’)

3. The petitioner states that after obtaining permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 to use the land for other purposes, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application on 24.09.2018 for fresh assessment of the land under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. The petitioner states that the 5th respondent-Tahsildar is not acting upon Ext.P3 application on the ground that the petitioner has to resort to the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, for making necessary changes in the Revenue records, paying the prescribed fee thereunder. The petitioner is aggrieved by the stand taken by the Tahsildar.

4. Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is pointed out that in Ext.P2 order of the Sub Collector, it was made amply clear that for construction of any residential building in the land subjected to the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, the petitioner will have to abide by Section 27A of the Act, 2008. As long as Ext.P2 is subject to such condition, the petitioner is bound to resort to the provisions of the Act, 2008 also before seeking fresh assessment of the land.

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

6. It is evident from Ext.P1 that the application for utilisation of the land for other purpose was made by the petitioner invoking the provisions of the Kerla Land Utilisation Order, 1967 on 24.03.2017. Section 27A of the Act, 2008 came into the statute book with effect from 30.12.2017 only.

7. This Court has considered the issue of applicability of the provisions of Section 27A of the Act, 2008 to the lands, which are subjected to the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, in Ext.P6 judgment in W.P.(C) No.31686/2016 and connected cases.

8. This Court in Ext.P7 judgment in W.P.(C) No.27567 of 2020 has held that in view of an earlier judgment in District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others [2020 (4) KHC 394], Section 27A cannot be made applicable to the cases where the applications under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order were pending prior to the date of coming into force of Section 27A.

In the light of the law laid down by this Court as above, the condition in Ext.P2 to the extent it directs the petitioner to comply with the conditions of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 is set aside. The 5th respondent-Tahsildar is directed to consider Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner, without insisting the petitioner to resort to the Act, 2008.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE

hmh

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22575/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED DATED 24.03.2017 UNDER THE KLU ORDER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 THE