High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-08-11Writ petition allowed; matter disposed with dir...

A. Ramachandran Nair and Maya Ramachandran Nair v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.26607 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2023-08-11
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed. Ext. P4 set aside to enable the 4th respondent Tahsildar to pass fresh orders on Ext. P3 within one month. If the Tahsildar insists on Form-A, petitioners may file in the appropriate form.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; matter disposed with directions to pass fresh orders within one month.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

A. Ramachandran Nair
Maya Ramachandran Nair

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram
District Collector, Ernakulam
Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi
Tahsildar (LR), Aluva Taluk
Village Officer, Chengamanad Village, Aluva

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Ajith Viswanathan
• Shibu Joseph
• Sayed Mansoor Bafakhy Thangal
• Haira P. Viswanathan (Sr.)

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Deepa Narayanan, Senior Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, A. Ramachandran Nair and Maya Ramachandran Nair, own 60.22 acres of land in Chengamanad Village, Ernakulam District. They challenge the omission of the 4th respondent Tahsildar in entertaining their application under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 for re-assessment of the Basic Tax rate and for updating entries in the Basic Tax Register, despite obtaining Ext. P2, an order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, permitting non-agricultural use. They had sought reassessment after the lands were permitted to be converted, but their records still described the property as Nilam/Paddy Land. Ext. P2 was issued in 2021; Ext. P3 was filed under Section 6A, yet no orders were passed, prompting the writ petition. The State, represented by the Senior Government Pleader, argued verification of Ext. P2’s genuineness and the land’s current status before any reassessment. The court relied on the precedents in Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala and District Collector Ernakulam v. Fr. Jose Uppani to hold that once an enabling order under KLLO 1967 is in place, old entries become redundant and a fresh assessment under Section 6A KLTA is mandatory after verifying the permission. Accordingly, the writ is allowed, Ext. P4 is set aside, and the Tahsildar is directed to pass fresh orders on Ext. P3 within one month, with Form-A to be filed if required.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 - Clause 6Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 - Rule 6(2)Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 - Section 6AKerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 27A

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Fresh assessment required after enabling order under KLLO 1967 (leading to revised land status).
Obligation of Tahsildar to re-assess under Section 6A KLTA, 1961 after verification of permission under KLLO 1967.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioners contended that Ext. P2 under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (issued in 2021) converted land for non-agricultural use and that, notwithstanding Ext. P2, there was no re-assessment of Basic Tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. They submitted Ext. P3 under Section 6A for re-assessment and entry corrections; the Tahsildar failed to pass orders. They argued that once a valid enabling order exists, the revenue records must reflect the new status and a fresh assessment is mandatory.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argued that Ext. P2’s validity and the land status required verification before any re-assessment and that the Court should examine veracity before directing action under the KLTA. The Senior Government Pleader relied on established precedents and emphasized verification of the order and land status prior to reassessment.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala and others	2020 (4) KLT 448	Positive	Cited with approval to support the proposition that an enabling order under KLLO 1967 necessitates fresh assessment under KLTA 1961 and that earlier entries become superfluous.
District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others	2020 (4) KLT 612	Positive	Cited to affirm that where orders under KLLO 1967 precede the cut-off for Section 27A, authorities must consider subsequent KLTA applications.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against A. Ramachandran Nair and Maya Ramachandran Nair v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH`** ``` FRIDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1945 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 26607 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONERS:`** - **`1 A.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR AGED 76 YEARS S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PLOT NO.67 (HB), PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI,, PIN – 682 036.`** - **`2 MAYA RAMACHANDRAN NAIR AGED 66 YEARS W/O.A.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, RESIDING AT PLOT NO.67 (HB), PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI, PIN – 682 036.`** - **`BY ADVS. AJITH VISWANATHAN SHIBU JOSEPH SAYED MANSOOR BAFAKHY THANGAL HAIRA P.VISWANATHAN (SR.)`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN – 695 001.`** - **`2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM,, PIN – 682 030.`** - **`3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI, K.B.JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, PIN – 682 001.`** W.P.(C) No.26607 of 2023 : 2 : - **`4 TAHSILDAR (L.R.) ALUVA TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA, MINI CIVIL STATION, CIVIL STATION ROAD, PERIYAR NAGAR, ALUVA,, PIN – 683 101.`** - **`5 VILLAGE OFFICER CHENGAMANAD VILLAGE, KUNNUMPURAM, DESOM, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683 102.`** ## **`BY ADV`** ``` SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN-SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No.26607 of 2023 : 3 : ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 11[th] day of August, 2023 The petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by the omission of the 4[th] respondent-Tahsildar in entertaining an application submitted by the petitioner for re-assessment of rate of Basic Tax on land and for making necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register. 2. The petitioners are owners of 60.22 Ares of property in Survey Nos.356/2, 356/3-3, 356/10, 356/18, 356/19 and 356/1-4 of Chengamanad Village in Ernakulam District. The petitioners approached the Revenue Divisional Officer invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 seeking to permit to use the land for nonagricultural purposes. The Revenue Divisional Officer passed Ext.P2 order under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 permitting to use the land for non-agricultural purposes. W.P.(C) No.26607 of 2023 : 4 : 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though Ext.P2 order was passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 in the year 2021, the land of the petitioners is not re-assessed for fixing rate of Basic Tax and the property of the petitioners is still described as paddy land in the Revenue records. The petitioners submitted Ext.P3 application invoking Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 seeking to re-assess the rate of Basic Tax and to make necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register. The Tahsildar, however, has not passed any orders on the application. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court. 4. The Senior Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The Senior Government Pleader controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition. It is submitted that Ext.P2 proceedings are of the year 2021. The veracity and the genuineness of Ext.P2 proceedings under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 are liable to be verified. The present status of the land will W.P.(C) No.26607 of 2023 : 5 : also have to be ascertained, before re-assessment of Basic Tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents. 6. This Court has considered the issue of reassessment of land tax on the basis of the orders obtained under the Kerala 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 permitting conversion of the land, then the earlier entries in the BTR showing the land as Nilam, Paddy Land, etc. will become superfluous and redundant and the competent Revenue officials like the Tahsildar are obliged under law to make a fresh assessment of the property under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. 7. A Division Bench of this Court also considered the issue in _**District Collector, Ernakulam and others v.**_ W.P.(C) No.26607 of 2023 : 6 : _**Fr.Jose Uppani and others** [2020 (4) KLT 612_ ] and the Division Bench held that when an applicant has secured orders under the Kerala Land Utiliation Order prior to the cut-off date on which Section 27A was introduced to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the competent Revenue officials are bound to consider the subsequent application submitted under the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. 8. As the nature of the land of the petitioners has been permitted to be changed pursuant to passing of a statutory order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, the competent authority is bound to re-assess the rate of Basic Tax in respect of the land and to make necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register, if necessary, after verifying the veracity/genuineness of the permission obtained under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 produced by the petitioners. The writ petition is therefore allowed. Ext.P4 is set aside in order to enable the 4[th] respondent-Tahsildar to pass W.P.(C) No.26607 of 2023 : 7 : orders afresh in Ext.P3 application submitted by the petitioner within a period of one month. It is made clear that if the 4[th] respondent-Tahsildar insists for filing of an application in Form-A, then the petitioner shall file the same in appropriate form. **Sd/N. NAGARESH JUDGE** AMR ## W.P.(C) No.26607 of 2023 : 8 : ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26607/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS`** ## **`Exhibit P 1`** ``` TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BASIC TAX PAID RECEIPTSBEARING NOS.KL07040105645/2021 DATED 19-07-2021. ``` - **`Exhibit P 1(a) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BASIC TAX PAID RECEIPTSBEARING NOS.KL07040105646/2021 DATED 19-07-2021.`** - **`Exhibit P 1( b) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BASIC TAX PAID RECEIPTSBEARING NOS.KL07040105648/2021 DATED 19-07-2021.`** - **`Exhibit P 1( c) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BASIC TAX PAID RECEIPTSBEARING NOS.KL07040105649/2021 DATED 19-07-2021.`** - **`Exhibit P1( d) TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPYOF THE BASIC TAX PAID RECEIPTSBEARING NOS.KL07040105647/2021 DATED 19-07-2021.`** - **`Exhibit P 2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.K1-390/21 DATED 18-02-2021, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`** - **`Exhibit P 3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JOINT APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 6A OF THE KERALA LAND TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 03-06-2023.`** - **`Exhibit P 4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23-06-2023, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT`**