SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
The Tahsildar & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Renjith George – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 14731 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.9524 of 2020) With Civil Appeal No.14732 Of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.12312 of 2020), Civil Appeal No.14733 Of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.13489 of 2020)
Decided On : 19-12-2024
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material placed on record.
3. The controversy herein has emanated from the applications moved by the respondent-landowners for the conversion of their ‘paddy land’ into ‘non-agricultural purpose land’. It appears that most of the respondents had moved the above-mentioned applications before the Revenue Divisional Officer under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. Some of these applications were allowed granting the conversions, while some remained pending. Meanwhile, the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Bill, 2018 was passed to amend the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short, 2008 Act’). The amended Act came into force w.e.f 30.12.2017, as is evident from Section 1(2) of the Amendment Act, which reads as follows:
4. The dispute eventually arose when the statutory authorities rejected the pending claims for conversion of land to non-agricultural purposes primarily on the premise that the new parameters introduced through the 2018 Amendment Act (which came into force from 30.12.2017) would apply. The authorities as well as the State of Kerala, in this regard, placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Revenue Divisional Officer Fort, Kochi and others vs. Jalaja Dileep and another, (2015) 11 SCC 597. That was a case pertaining to the interpretation of provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, where this Court, having examined Section 18 of that Act, held that the said provision enabling the “rectification of mistake” cannot be invoked for the purpose of seeking conversion of ‘paddy land’ to ‘non-agricultural purposes’. There seems to be no quarrel about the legal position to that effect.
5. The High Court was thus called upon to analyze the legal impact and consequences of the amendment to the 2008 Act as introduced with effect from 30.12.2017.
6. Through the aforesaid Amendment Act a new definition of “change of nature of unnotified land”, was also inserted, which reads as under:
7. Similarly, in Clause (vi) of Section 2, after the words “paddy land”, the words “or unnotified land” were added.
8. The expression “unnotified land” has also been defined in Clause (xviiA) of the same provision, to mean that:
9. Likewise, a new set of sections, i.e., Sections 27A to 27D have been incorporated in the Principal Act after Section 27 thereof.
10. The newly added Section 27C, inter alia, pertains to changes made in the revenue records, pursuant to the orders passed by competent Forums, and the continuous maintenance of such records. It reads as under:
(2) Where the paddy land or unnotified land is duly converted as per the provisions of this Act, the Tahsildar shall re-assess the land tax under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 (13 of 1961) and make necessary entries in revenue records relating to such lands.
(3) Where such changes are recorded in revenue records, the number and
The 2018 Amendment Act's conditions apply only to applications submitted after its effective date, not to pending applications, which remain under the unamended Act.
When applications are made before a specific cut-off date but permissions are granted after that date due to administrative delays or processes beyond applicants' control, they should not be subject ....
A petitioner must adhere to specific statutory provisions for land conversion, and cannot bypass these requirements through alternative applications.
Revenue Record - If orders are secured under KLU Order prior to cut off date, 30.12.2017, amended provisions of Act will not apply and additional entries regarding the change of description of land a....
Change of user of land - prescription made in the Rules framed in terms of Sec.27A(3) of the Amendment Act, stipulates that the amount to be paid is much lesser than the 50% of the fair value of the ....
Ground realities must be evaluated in land use conversion applications as per established judicial principles.
Existing construction and prior land conversion need expedited review per established legal standards.
The Court required adherence to prior legal principles in the reconsideration of land conversion applications under relevant statutes.
Judicial review can overturn arbitrary executive decisions on land use when procedural due process is not adequately followed, especially regarding agricultural lands.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.