An enabling order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order mandates reassessment of land tax, overriding previous classifications.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 13th day of October, 2022 The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the alleged omission of the 2nd respondent-Additional Tahsildar (Land Records) in entertaining a representation submitted by the petitioner for re-assessment of rate of Basic Tax of land and for making necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register.

2. The petitioner is owner of 50.58 Ares of land in Re-

Survey No.53 in Block No.25 of Palakkad-III Village, Palakkad District. The property in question was purchased in the year 1999. The petitioner approached the Revenue Divisional Officer invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 seeking to permit him to use the land for non-agricultural purposes. The Revenue Divisional Officer passed Ext.P2 order under Clause 6 of the and permitted the petitioner to use the land for non-agricultural purposes.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though Ext.P2 order was passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 in the year 1987, the land of the petitioner is not re-assessed for fixing rate of Basic Tax and the property of the petitioner is still described as paddy land in the Revenue records. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application invoking Section 6 (3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 seeking to re-assess the land tax and to make necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register. The Additional Tahsildar (Land Records), however, has not passed any orders on the application.

Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court.

4. The Senior Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Senior Government Pleader controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is submitted that Ext.P2 proceedings are of the year 2006. The veracity and the genuineness of Ext.P1 KLU Order is liable to be verified before passing any orders under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 . The present status of the land will also have to be ascertained.

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

` 6. This Court has considered the issue of reassessment of land tax on the basis of the orders obtained under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 in the judgment inMary Abraham v. State of Kerala and others [2020 (4) KLT 448] . This Court held that once enabling order is passed under Rule 6(2) of the 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, 1961 .

7. A Division Bench of this Court also considered the issue inDistrict Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others [2020 (4) KLT 612] and the Division Bench held that when an applicant has secured orders under the Kerala Land Utiliation Order prior to the cut- off date on which Section 27A was introduced to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the competent Revenue officials are bound to consider the subsequent application submitted under the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 .

8. As the nature of the land of the petitioner has changed pursuant to passing of statutory order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 , the competent authority is bound to re-assess the rate of Basic Tax in respect of the land and to make necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register, if necessary, after verifying the veracity/genuineness of the Permit under the produced by the petitioner.

The writ petition is therefore allowed. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 Form-A application submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of one month.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE smm APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29413/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhi