Land use reclassification must comply with legal statutes governing land classification.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 04^th day of June, 2025 The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P8 order and direct the 3^rd respondent to classify the petitioner’s property described in the writ petition as ‘Purayidom’ in the basic tax register and all revenue records.

2. The petitioner and his wife are the co-owners of

68 Ares of land situated in Perumpetty Village, covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt and sale deed No.1429/2004 of Vennikkulam Sub Registry Office. The petitioner’s property is a dry land and has coconut trees aged 40 years and other plantations. In order to use the property for any other purpose other than agriculture, petitioner had submitted an application under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order , 1967 (‘ KLUO ’ for short), which was allowed by Ext.P3 order dated 22.08.2017. Pursuant to Ext.P3 order, the petitioner has constructed an auditorium in the said property on the strength of Ext.P4 building permit. After that, the petitioner had submitted a Form 5 application before the 1^st respondent, to exclude the petitioner's property from the data bank. By Ext.P6 order, the said application was allowed. Consequently, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 application (Form A) before the 3rd respondent, to reclassify the petitioner's property as ‘purayidom’ in the basic tax register and the revenue records. But, by the impugned Ext.P8 order, the 3rd respondent has rejected Ext.P7 application and directed the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent by filing a Form 7 application, as prescribed under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008 and the Rules framed thereunder ('Act and Rules' for short). Ext.P8 order is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

3. The 3rd respondent has filed a statement, inter alia, stating that, in cases where the change of use of the land is permitted under the KLUO , there is no provision to change the classification of the land in the revenue records under the Kerala Land Tax Act ,1961. The KLU Order only provides the conversion of land for any other purpose other than the agricultural activities. The said position of law is no longer res integra in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inRevenue Divisional O Fort Kochi and Others v. Jalaja Dileep and Another (Civil Appeal 2749/2015), which states that, the nature of the petitioner's property cannot be converted by directing changes in the basic tax register. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed.

4. The materials on record reveals that, the petitioner was granted Ext.P3 KLU Order on 22.08.2017, permitting him to use the property for any other purpose other than agricultural activities. Subsequently, by Ext.P6 order, the petitioner's property was excluded from the data bank.

5. InTahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk and anothers v. Renjith George [2020 (1) KHC 865] , a Division Bench of this Court has held that, an order passed by an authority under the KLUO changing the description of land cannot lead to a situation where Section 18 is attracted. Instead, such change of description of land would render the assessment already made under Section 6A of the Land Tax Act redundant and call for a fresh assessment, in accordance with the said Act. If necessary, as a consequence of such assessment, it would be open to the authorities also to make appropriate additions to the basic tax register. Such a course is not forfeited by any other principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inJalaja Dileep’ case (supra). The assessment of land tax on conversion of the nature of the property, prior to the introduction of Section 27A of the Act, 2008, was guided by the provisions of land utilization order and the law laid down by this Court inLLMC, K