WP(C)/42974/2022 of SUNIL K.K, Vs TAHSILDAR(LR) on 30 December 2022

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30[th] day of December, 2022

The petitioner, who is the Managing Partner of GarlandRealtors Private Limited, is before this Court aggrieved by theomission of the 1[st] respondent-Tahsildar in entertaining anapplication submitted by the petitioner for re-assessment ofrate of Basic Tax of land and for making necessary entries inthe Basic Tax Register.

2. The petitioner is the Managing Partner of GarlandRealtors Private Limited. The aforesaid Company purchasedan extent of 76.51 Ares of property in Survey Nos.209/1 &209/7 of Choondal Village of Kunnamkulam Taluk in ThrissurDistrict. The property in question was purchased in the year2006. The petitioner approached the Revenue DivisionalOfficer invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land UtilisationOrder, 1967 seeking to permit to use the land for non-agricultural purposes. The Revenue Divisional Officer passed

Ext.P2 order under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land UtilisationOrder, 1967 permitting to use the land for non-agriculturalpurposes.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though Ext.P2 order was passed under the Kerala Land UtilisationOrder, 1967 in the year 2008, the land of the petitioner is notre-assessed for fixing rate of Basic Tax and the property ofthe petitioner is still described as paddy land in the Revenuerecords. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application invokingSection 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 seeking to re-assess the Basic Tax and to make necessary entries in theBasic Tax Register. The Tahsildar, however, has not passedany orders on the application. Hence, the petitioner hasapproached this Court. The petitioner states that he had filedWP(C)No.42141 of 2022 and has obtained Ext.P6 judgment.The petitioner is entitiled to same relief in this writ petitionalso.

4. The Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. TheGovernment Pleader controverted all the material allegationsmade by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is submitted thatExt.P2 proceedings are of the year 2008. The veracity andthe genuineness of Ext.P2 proceedings under the KeralaLand Utilisation Order, 1967 are liable to be verified. Thepresent status of the land will also have to be ascertained,before reassessment of Basic Tax under the Kerala Land TaxAct, 1961.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitionerand the learned Government Pleader representing therespondents.

6. This Court has considered the issue of reassessmentof land tax on the basis of the orders obtained under theKerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 in the judgment in Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala and others [2020 (4) KLT 448].This Court held that once enabling order is passed under

Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 permittingconversion of the land, then the earlier entries in the BTRshowing the land as Nilam, Paddy Land, etc. will becomesuperfluous and redundant and the competent Revenueofficials like the Tahsildar are obliged under law to make afresh assessment of the property under Section 6A of theKerala Land Tax Act, 1961.

7. A Division Bench of this Court also considered the issue in District Collector, Ernakulam and others v.Fr.Jose Uppani and others [2020 (4) KLT 612] and theDivision Bench held that when an applicant has securedorders under the Kerala Land Utiliation Order prior to thecutoff date on which Section 27A was introduced to theKerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008,the competent Revenue officials are bound to consider thesubsequent application submitted under the provisions of theKerala Land Tax Act, 1961.

8. As the nature of the land of the petitioner has been permitted to be changed pursuant to passing of a statutoryorder under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, thecompetent authority is bound to re-assess the rate of BasicTax in respect of the land and to make necessary entries inthe Basic Tax Register, if necessary, after verifying theveracity/genuineness of the permission obtained under theKerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 produced by thepetitioner.

The writ petition is therefore allowed. The 1strespondent-Tahsildar is directed to consider Ext.P4 Form-Aapplication submitted by the petitioner, if the application isreceived and pending, in accordance with law and passappropriate orders thereon, within a period of one month. TheTahsildar while considering Form-A application shall advert toExts.P2 and P5 also.

akv

Sd/-N.NAGARESH JUDGE

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42974/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//P.A. TO JUDGE