Prior orders under the KLU Order exempt landowners from undertaking additional procedural requirements under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 9413 OF 2025 PETITIONER: DEEPU C.V., S/O. VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, CHERUNTHAMUTTOM HOUSE, JAWAHAR NAGAR, MUTTOM, THAIKKATTUKARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683106 BY ADVS.

SRI.P.N.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI SHRI. HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRST FLOOR, K B JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001

3 THE TAHSILDAR (LR), TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683101 SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT Dated this the 24^th day of June, 2025 The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P9 order passed by the 3^rd respondent and allow Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner in Form A under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 ( ‘Act, in short).

2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of 29.77 Ares of land comprised in Re-Survey No.2/10-2 (Old Sy.No.339/14) of the Aluva West Village, Aluva Taluk, covered by Ext.P1 land tax receipt. By Exts.P2 to P4 orders passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU order, in short), the petitioner was permitted to use the property for any other purpose other than agricultural activities. Subsequently, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 application before the 3^rd respondent to re-assess the tax and change/add entry in the Basic Tax Register (BTR). But, by Ext.P7 order, the 3^rd respondent directed the petitioner to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer/ 2^nd respondent. The petitioner challenged Ext.P7 order before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 31778/2023. By Ext.P8 judgment, this Court set aside Ext.P7 order and directed the 3^rd respondent to reconsider Ext.P5 application. But, by the impugned Ext.P9 order, the 3^rd respondent has again rejected Ext.P5 application. By Ext.P11 judgment, a Full Bench of this Court has categorically held that there is no necessity to follow the procedure under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, 2008 (in short, Act and Rules), once an order under the KLU Order is passed. Ext.P9 order is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the writ petition.

3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

4. It is not in dispute that, by Exts.P2 to P4 orders passed under the KLU Order, the petitioner was permitted to use his property for any other purpose other than agricultural activities. On the strength of Exts.P2 to P4 orders, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P5 application in Form A, to re-assess the tax and change/ add entries in the BTR as prescribed under Section 6A of the Act. But, by Ext.P7 order, the 3^rd respondent had directed the petitioner to approach the 2^nd respondent as provided under the Act and Rules.

5. By Ext.P8 judgment, this Court set aside Ext.P7 by observing as follows:-

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue is covered in his favour by the judgment of this Court in Shameem P.K. And Others v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki and Others [2021 (2) KHC 373] and Basil v. Local Level Monitoring Committee [2024 (1) KHC 28] wherein, it is held that if the land is reclaimed and converted prior to 30.12.2017, such land need not have to undergo the process under Section 27A of the Act, 2008.

4. In view of the above decisions, Ext.P7