Authorities must consider land classification applications under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, reflecting changes as per existing legal precedents.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of 20.5 cents of land in Re-Survey No.271/8 of Vazhakkala Village, Kanayannur Taluk in Ernakulam district. It is submitted that the property purchased by the petitioner was the property in respect of which Ext.P3 order had been passed by the RDO under the KLU order permitting the petitioner to use the land for any purpose other than agriculture. It is submitted that the land is not included in the finalized notified data bank. The petitioner has thereafter submitted Ext.P6 application before the additionally impleaded 5th 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 in District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others [ 2020 (4) KLT 612 ]. It is submitted that the additionally impleaded 5th respondent is duty bound to consider Ext.P6 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

additionally impleaded 5th respondent to take up, consider Ext.P6 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 allowed, 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. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition, complete in all respects, along with a copy of this judgment before the additionally impleaded 5th respondent for compliance. This writ petition is ordered accordingly.