Authorities must consider land classification applications under the Kerala Land Tax Act, ensuring compliance with established judicial interpretations.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of 23.48 Ares of land in Re-Survey No.14/20 (old survey No.130/3) of Kottayam Village of Kottayam Taluk in Kottayam district. It is submitted that the land is not included in the finalized notified data bank. Ext.P3 is the order passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order . The petitioner has thereafter submitted Ext.P4 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 decision of a Division Bench of this Court inDistrict 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.P4 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.

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. Having heard the learned Government Pleader also, I am of the opinion that the application submitted by the petitioner is liable to be considered in accordance with law, taking note of the judgments of this Court inDistrict Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others [ 2020 (4) KLT 612 ] and in Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki and others [ 2020 (5) KLT 403 ].

5. In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the

1st respondent to take up, consider Ext.P4 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.P3 order. If the facts stated are found to be correct and if the application is liable to be considered, then, the appropriate steps shall be taken for correction of the entry/alteration of the revenue records by entering the property as garden land/dry land/purayidom. The entire proceedings shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

SVP

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21410/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED

30.12.2020 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KOTTAYAM.

Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.3068/2009 DATED 19.11.2009 OF ADDL. SRO, KOTTAYAM.

Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE KLU ORDER NO.H-377/95 DAED 28.08.1995 ISSUED BY THE SUB COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM.

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED

15.02.2020 IN FORM A SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

01.12.2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C)

NO.26495/2020.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 24.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.