JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- “a) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate order or direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P8 application and to reassess the 19.2 Ares (47 cents) of property of the petitioner covered by Exhibit P4 KLU order, treating it as dry land and issue appropriate orders directing to change the classification of the land in the Basic Tax Register and other revenue records as dry land, within two months.

b) To direct the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P8 application in the light of Exhibit P10 decision and to pass orders within two months.

c) To direct the 3rd respondent to make necessary corrections in records based on the orders of the 2nd respondent in Exhibit P8 application.

d) To issue such other writ order or directions which are deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner in possession of 19.2 Ares (47 cents) of property comprised in Survey No.82/1 in Block No.14 of Mundur II Village of Palakkad Taluk in Palakkad District. It is submitted that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner had obtained Ext.P4 order under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 for conversion of 47 cents of land purchased by the petitioner for construction of a petrol pump. It is submitted that the conversion has been effected and licence has been issued for the petrol pump. It is submitted that the property is not included in the data-bank and a certificate to that effect is produced as Ext.P7. Thereafter, the petitioner purchased the land covered by Ext.P4 order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. The petitioner submitted Ext.P8 application for making additional entries/alterations in the Basic Tax Register and for recording the property as dry land/purayidom. It is submitted that the said application is liable to be considered in the light of decisions of this Court in District 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].

4. Having heard the learned Government Pleader also, I am of the opinion that the application preferred by the petitioner are liable to be considered in accordance with law and in terms of the decisions rendered by this Court, referred above. This Court has repeatedly held that where permission had been granted for conversion of the property under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order on applications filed prior to 30.12.2017, if the property is not included in the data bank, then, there is no requirement for an application to be preferred under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 and that the proper course of action is for an application to be preferred under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act for an addition/alteration in the Basic Tax Register and for the recording of the property as purayidom/dry land therein.

5. In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to take up and consider Ext.P8 application preferred by the petitioner, in the light of the judgments referred to above and pass appropriate orders after verifying all the relevant aspects of the matter including the identity of the property and whether the property had been duly converted pursuant to Ext.P4 before 2008. Orders shall be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the application is found liable to be allowed, consequential changes shall be effected by the 3rd respondent in the Basic Tax Register showing the nature of the property as garden land/dry land, in accordance with law, without further delay.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE bpr APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 THE PHOTO COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.

3418/2008 DATED 25.07.2008.

EXHI