IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 15TH ASWINA, 1942 WP(C).No.20962 OF 2020(U)

PETITIONERS:

SHAJAN P.X.

AGED 47 YEARS S/O. XAVIER, PURAKKAT HOUSE, KATRIKADAVU DESOM, KALOOR P.O., ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, PIN-682 017 BY ADVS.

SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH)

SMT.T.MANASY RESPONDENTS:

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, PIN-682 001

2 TAHSILDAR (LR), KANAYNNOOR, KANAYANNOOR TALUK OFFICE, KOCHI-682 011

3 VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAMKULAM VILLAGE OFFICE, ELAMKULAM,PIN-682 020 SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL – GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

-------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

Petitioner owns a land measuring 18.22 Ares in Elamkulam Village. Though the land of the petitioner is shown in the revenue records as paddy land, it was reclaimed long prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act). The land of the petitioner was originally held by his father and in order to make use of the land for other purposes, the father of the petitioner preferred an application before the competent authority under the Land Utilization Order (Kerala), and in terms of Ext.P3 order, the competent authority under the Land Utilisation Order granted the permission sought for by the father of the petitioner. On 11.09.2020, the petitioner preferred Ext.P4 application before the second respondent for re- assessing the land under the Kerala Land Tax Act and also for making appropriate corrections in the revenue records pertaining to the property. It is alleged by the petitioner that the second respondent is insisting payment of the fees prescribed under Section 27C of the Act for the purpose of considering Ext.P4 application. The case of the petitioner is that insofar as the predecessor of the petitioner has obtained permission of the competent authority under the Land Utilization Order prior to the coming into the force of Act 29 of 2018, in terms of which Section 27C was introduced to the Act, the provisions therein cannot be pressed into service while considering an application for reassessment of the land under the Kerala Land Tax Act. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in this writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

3. It is seen that long prior to the commencement of the Act, the predecessor of the petitioner obtained permission of the competent authority under the Land Utilization Order for use of the property for other purposes. In Renji K.Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2019 (2) KLT 262, this Court held that if the holder of a land which is not liable to be included in the data bank prepared under the Act prefers an application for permission to make use of the land for other purposes under the Land Utilization Order before the coming into the force of Act 29 of 2018, the provisions therein cannot be pressed into service in relation to the said land. Further, in Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, 2020 (5) KLT 403, this Court held that where statutory permission for change of user of land has been obtained for conversion of a paddy land to a garden land in terms of the provisions contained in Kerala Land Utilisation Order, then it is the obligation of the competent authority under the Land Tax Act to make a fresh assessment of the land so as to collect higher land tax for such converted land and to issue appropriate directions to make additional entries in the Basic Tax Register to reflect the true nature of the land as garden land/Purayidam.

4. In the light of the decisions aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to reassess the land of the petitioner, after ensuring that the same is covered by Ext.P3 order,