Tax re-assessment is mandatory under Section 6A when land use conversion is permitted under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 16th day of September, 2022 The petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by the refusal of the respondent-Tahsildar to consider the application submitted by the petitioners for re-assessment of tax.

2. The 1st petitioner owns 78.07 Ares of land in Survey Nos.3/2, 5/1, 6 and 7 of Irinjalakuda Village in Thrissur District. The 2nd petitioner is owner in possession of 18.36 Ares of land in Survey No.3/2 of the same Village. According to the petitioners, the entire property is lying contiguously and is in the nature of dry land.

3. As the petitioners wanted to utilise the property for non-

agricultural purposes, an application was filed under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order in the year 2016. The Revenue Divisional Officer considered the application and passed Ext.P1 order under Clause 6(2) of the permitting the petitioners to utilise the land for other purposes.

4. The petitioners state that in view of the orders passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order , the competent authorities are bound to re-assess the tax on the land of the petitioners considering the nature of the land. The petitioners submitted an application on 19.07.2022 to the respondent-

Tahsildar seeking re-assessment of tax.

5. The application submitted by the petitioners has not been entertained by the Tahsildar holding that for re- assessment of tax, the petitioners have to submit application under the appropriate form contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The petitioners would submit that Ext.P2 communication issued by the respondent-Tahsildar is unsustainable in view of the law laid down by this Court in the judgment inMary Abraham v. State of Kerala and others [2020 (4) KLT 448] .

6. The learned Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondent and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader submitted that the issue has been considered by this Court in Mary Abraham (supra) and also in the judgment in W.P(C) No.26007 of 2020.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondent.

8. The petitioners have obtained orders/permissions for utilisation of their land for non agricultural purposes as per Ext.P1 proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer has granted permission to use the land for non-agricultural purposes invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order , 1967. When such permission is granted, the respondent has to consider the application for re-assessment of tax.

9. The issue was considered by this Court in the judgment in Mary Abraham (supra) and 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 .

10. This Court again considered the issue in W.P(C) No.26007 of 2020. After adverting to the judgments of this Court inRenji K. Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2019 (2) KLT 262] and inIype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2020 (5) KLT 403] , this Court held that where statutory permission for change of user of land has been obtained for conversion of a paddy land to a garden land in terms of the provisions contained in the Kerala Land Utilisation Order , then it is the obligation of the competent authority under the Land Tax Act to make a fresh assessment of the land so as to collect the higher land tax for such converted land and to issue appropriate directions to the officers concerned to make additional entries in the Basic Tax Register so as to reflect the nature of the land as garden land/purayidam in the said Register. As the issue raised by the peti