IMPORTANT POINT
District Collector does not have any original jurisdiction for taking action under S.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. Once, an order is passed under Kerala Land Utilisation Order for conversion, then the property holder is legally entitled to maintain an application under S.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 before the competent revenue officials

JUDGMENT :

The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows: The property belonging to the petitioner is situated in two survey numbers, was classified as “Nilam” in the BTR even though it was converted in the year 1987 and 1988 pursuant to Exts.P-2 & P-3 orders issued by the 3rd respondent-RDO under the Kerala Land Utilization Order and was categorized as “purayidam” in the data bank. The petitioner sought for change in the BTR vide Ext.P-5 application dated 22.01.2014 submitted before the 3rd respondent-RDO. The 3rd respondent RDO instead of referring the application to the 4th respondent-Tahsildar to make a fresh assessment of the land in the BTR under the Kerala Land Tax Act sought for a report of the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, who reported the fact that the property was converted prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Thereafter, the RDO referred the matter to the 2nd respondent-District Collector, who vide Ext.P-8 order rejected Ext.P-5 application on the ground that there are no laws for change in BTR and it could be done in particular cases as per the judgments of this Court and that the property could be cultivated with the same cultivation that was being conducted in the property immediately three years prior to Exts.P-2 & P-3 orders. It is in the light of these averments and contentions, the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition with the following prayers:

“(A) to call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibits P8 order and to quash the same by finding that the second respondent didn’t have any power to pass orders on Exhibit P5 application filed under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act;

(B) to declare that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount as fees as per the provisions of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008, brought in by the Amendment Act 29 of 2018, as the land was converted as a garden land in 1987 and 1988 pursuant to Exhibits P2 and P3 orders under Clause 6 of the KLU Order in 1987 and 1988 respectively and on 22.01.2014, when Exhibit P5 application was filed before the third respondent;

(C) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the third respondent to refer Exhibit P5 application to the fourth respondent to make necessary additions in respect of her property in the BTR and Revenue Records leading to fresh assessment of Land Tax within a time as stipulated by this Hon’ble Court;

(D) to pass such other writ order or direction that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and

(E) to award the cost of this petition.”

2. Heard Sri. K. Shaj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner & Sri. K.J. Manu Raj, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. It is beyond any dispute that the subject property has been converted as garden land or purayidam, long prior to 12.08.2008 (which the date of coming into force of the provisions contained in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008). As a matter of fact, it is common ground that the 3rd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer has by virtue of the enabling provisions contained in the Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 has already granted permission for conversion of the subject properties to be used for various purposes other than agricultural purposes, as per Ext.P-2 proceedings issued as early as on 12.10.1987 and Ext.P-3 proceedings issued as early as on 18.03.1988. Thereafter, now the petitioner has sought for fresh assessment of the subject property under S.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 before the revenue official concerned, in order to reclassify the land as garden land or purayidam by making additional entries in the Basic Tax Register, instead of the earlier BTR entries as Nilam or Paddy land, as the case may be. It so happened that such an application should have been file