The court affirmed that property reclassification is valid under government circulars where prior orders exist, ensuring benefits extend to affected parties.

JUDGMENT

[WP(C) Nos.33038 and 36258 of 2023]

The petitioner obtained an order under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order , 1967 (for short, the “KLU Order”), with respect to the property measuring 1.63 ¾ Acres in Survey No.732/1 part, so as to convert the wetland/paddy land into a ‘paramba’. However, there was only one condition attached thereto that the conversion as above was permitted for the purpose of carrying out the construction of the buildings for industrial units. The petitioner further states that pursuant to Ext.P2 Government Order dated 08.08.1990, the Government permitted the alteration of the land as above by excluding the same from the “zoning regulations” pursuant to the Town Planning Scheme. The petitioner further states that he was exempted from tax payable under the Kerala Building Tax Act , 1975, since the building constructed in the afore property was a “factory”. The petitioner further points out that he decided to start a petroleum outlet and, pursuant to the licence issued by the Thrissur Corporation as per Ext. P11, the outlet was started. Even on the face of all the above, the petitioner states that he later realised that in the BTR, the property was still described as “Nilam” and therefore, he approached the authorities seeking for corrections on the basis of the documents referred to above. Therefore, the petitioner states that he had submitted an application before the 3^rd respondent with the afore prayer and by Ext.P15, the 3^rd respondent passed an order stating that the petitioner is to make an application in Form 6 as prescribed under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act , 2008, satisfying the fee payable under Rule 12(17) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. Seeking to challenge the order at Ext.P15 dated 23.08.2022, the petitioner has filed W.P(C) No.33038 of 2023. Another order dated 13.09.2023 was also issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, stating that the property concerned is included in the data bank as informed by the Agricultural Officer as well as the Village Officer, and hence the petitioner is to file an appropriate application in accordance with law for removing the property from the data bank. The petitioner has therefore filed W.P(C) No.36258 of 2023, seeking to challenge the afore order dated 13.09.2023, producing the same as Ext.P16.

2. I have heard Sri. G.Sreekumar (Chelur), Smt.Sylaja S.L., the learned Government Pleader, as well as Sri.Santhosh P. Poduval, the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.

3. This Court notes that the Government has issued a circular dated 19.01.2026 providing for the reclassification of property as “purayidam” and for acceptance of tax on that basis in cases where an order under Clause 6 of the KLU Order has already been issued. In the case at hand, as already noticed, the order under the KLU Order was obtained by the petitioner as early as in the year 1986.

In the light of the afore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. Therefore, these writ petitions would stand allowed, setting aside the impugned order at Ext.P15 in W.P(C) No.33038 of 2023 and the impugned order at Ext.P16 in W.P(C) No.36258 of 2023 and directing the respondents herein to extend the benefits provided by the circular dated 19.01.2026 issued by the Government to the petitioner herein also.

Sd/-