IMPORTANT POINT
Conversion of nature of the land due to afflux of time cannot be effected under section 18 of Kerala Land Tax Act 1961. Such conversion is governed by KLU Order or the Kerala Wetland Act, 2008.

Judgment

R. Banumathi, J.

Delay condoned in SLP (C) No.32231 of 2014 and leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

2. This bunch of appeals raises question of substantial importance, whether the order of conversion of land passed by the Tahsildar under Kerala Land Tax Act would circumvent the provisions of beneficial legislations such as Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967?

3. These appeals arise out of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, which upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge and thereby directing the Tahsildar to effect a change in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) and correct the nature of land from ‘Nilam’ (Wetland) to ‘Purayidam’ (Dry land). For convenience, facts in civil appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.3172 of 2014 is referred to and taken as the lead case.

4. Briefly stated facts of the case are as under:-Respondent No.1 herein is the joint owner of the land comprised in Survey No.330/2 of Ernakulam Village in Ernakulam District to an extent of 12.286 cents. The respondents approached the Agricultural Officer who gave a certificate on 10.2.2012, to the effect that the land in question was recorded as a converted land in the Paddy Wetland in the survey records in Ernakulam Village and additionally, a possession certificate was also issued by the Village Officer on 15.2.2012, wherein it was reported that the land in question is actually a dry land. When the heirs of the respondents tried to sell the land, the purchasers of the land insisted for production of an order showing nature of land as a dry land, as a condition precedent for registering sale deed, but the revenue authorities refused to correct the same.

5. The respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition No.11784 of 2012, before the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to the authorities to effect necessary corrections in the Basic Tax Register and change the nature of lands from ‘wetland’ to ‘dry land’. Respondent No.1 averred that the disputed property is a dry land, but wrongly described as a wetland (Nilam) in their sale deed and that it was never used for any agricultural purposes. The Single Judge of the High Court vide Order dated 13.7.2012, allowed the writ petition directing that the property of the respondent No.1 will have to be classified as ‘reclaimed purayidam’ (dry land) in the Basic Tax Register (for short ‘BTR’) and further issued a direction to the Tahsildar and the Village Officer to effect appropriate correction as per the terms of the direction. Aggrieved by the Order, State preferred W.A. No.412 of 2013, wherein the Division Bench of the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 2.1.2014, upheld the order of the Single Judge and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, the State of Kerala has filed this appeal by way of special leave assailing the impugned judgment.

6. Learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that without making an application for conversion of nature of land before any statutory authority, writ proceedings were initiated by respondent No.1 and the impugned order would circumvent the provisions of Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. It was submitted that ‘Nilam’ (wetland) in due course had been changed or transformed into reclaimed ‘purayidam’ dry land or any other state of condition and the change so effected or made by itself will not amount to ‘a mistake’ as referred to in Section 18 of Kerala Land Tax Act and the Tahsildar has absolutely no competence to decide upon the reclassification application in respect of the correction of BTR and the impugned order is liable to be set aside as they are in contravention of provisions of KLU Order, 1967 and Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wetland Act, 2008.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents contended that since District Collector declined to make necessary changes in the BTR, in exercise of pow