Balakrishnan K.K. v. District Collector, Civil Station, Kakkanad, Ernakulam; Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi; Tahsildar, Kanayannoor Taluk; Village Officer, Vazhaakkala; Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC), Thrikkakara represented by its Convener, Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Thrikkakara, Ernakulam District

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.8104 OF 2020(K)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **BALAKRISHNAN K.K. AGED 44 YEARS S/O P.N. KRISHNAN NAIR, KARAKKAKANDATHIL HOUSE, KAKKANAD P.O.KOCHI-682 030.** **BY ADVS. SHRI.ESM.KABEER SRI.N.B.ANOOP SMT.K.M.AMINABEEVI SMT.C.SHEEBA** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KAKKAND, ERNAKULAM-682 030.** - **2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 001.** - **3 THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682 011.** - **4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, VAZHAKKALA, VAZHAKKALA P.O.ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 021.** - **5 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, THRIKKAKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, (THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 030.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.8104 OF 2020(K)** **2** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** **----------------------------------------W.P.(C.) No. 8104 of 2020 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 16[th] day of March, 2020** ## **JUDGMENT** The case set up in the W.P.(C.) is as follows : That the petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P6 order imposing payment of huge amounts under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. The application under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order was submitted as early as on 24.05.2017 as evidence from Exhibit P1. Exhibit P2 judgment was dated 02.06.2017 directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of Exhibit P1 application within 2 months. The petitioner owns 20.01 Ares in Re.Sy.No.130/8 in Block No.9 of Vazhakkala Village. The property is not included in the Data Bank as disclosed from Exhibit P4 report. The property is a converted land and there are fruit bearing trees. Admittedly the land is not suitable for paddy cultivation.As per the decision reported in [2020 (1) KHC 865 (DB)] _**Tahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk & another Vs.Ranjith George**_ this Hon'ble Court held that applications submitted before 30.12.2017, Section 27A of the Amendment Act of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2018 is not applicable. The petitioner's application was dated 24.05.2017 and Exhibit P5 **WP(C).No.8104 OF 2020(K)** **3** forwarding letter from the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent to take a decision on the petitioner's application to use his property for other purposes was delayed and the petitioner was denied his right approved by the statute and the decisions of this Court. 2. The main contentions urged by the petitioner are as follows : A. Ext.P1 application dated 25.4.2017 refers to Ext.P2 judgment under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. Applications filed before 30.12.2017, Sec.27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Amendment Act, 2018 is not applicable. B. The decision reported in 2017(2) KLT paged 262 Renji K.Paul & Another v.Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha and 2019 (4) KHC 400 reported in 2020 (1) KHC 865 Tahsildar Thodupuzha Taluk & another v.Renjith George this Court held that the Section 27A and 27C of the Act is not applicable to applications before 30.12.2017. C. In view of the said decisions and other decisions Ext.P6 order is illegal and the petitioner is eligible to use his property for other purposes and to reassess the property under Sec.6A of the Land Tax Act. 3. It is in the light of these averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed the instant W.P.(.) with the following prayers : _i) “To call for records relating to Exhibit P1 to P6 and to issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit P6 order. ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders on Exhibit P1 application dated 24.05.2017 submitted under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 and permit the petitioner to use the petitioner's property for other purposes as directed in Exhibit P2 judgment. iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents that the petitioner's property can be changed in the Basic Tax Register by collecting_ **WP(C).No.8104 OF 2020(K)** **4** _25% of the scheduled amount as per Ru;e 12[17] of the amended Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008._ _iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner's property to be used for other purposes in view of the decision reported in 2020[10 KHC Page 865 Tahsildar Thodupuzha Taluk & another Vs.Ranjith George._ _v) Any other reliefs also may be granted in order to meet out justice considering the circumstances of the case.”_ 4. Heard Sri.E.S.M.Kabeer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.J.Manuraj, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 5. It is beyond the pale of any factual controversy in this case that the subject property owned and possessed by the petitioner has been converted as garden land/purayidom long prior to 12.8.2008 (date of coming into force of Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008). It is also beyond any dispute that the petitioner has indeed filed Ext.P1 application dated 25.04.2017 under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order,1967 seeking for formal orders for conversion of the subject property as garden land /purayidom and for its use for any nonagricultural purposes in terms of Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967. It is also common ground that this Court as per Ext.P2 judgment rendered on 2.6.2017 in W.P.(C.)No.18383/2017 has already directed the respondent District Collector to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 application dated 25.4.2017 under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 within 2 months. For reasons only known to the respondent so far, the competent respondent officer concerned has not passed orders under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 **WP(C).No.8104 OF 2020(K)** **5** on Ext.P1 application. In spite of the fact that the time limit given as per Ext.P2 judgment had expired long ago. 6. It is also indisputable that this Court has held in a series of judgments as in _**Geo Peter** v._ _**Revenue Divisional Officer**_ [2019 (3) KLT 838] _,_ _**Renji K.Paul** v._ _**Revenue Divisional Officer**_ [2019 (2) KLT 262] _**, Salim** v._ _**State of Kerala**_ [2019 (3) KLT 604 (DB)] _**LLMC**_ , _**Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma**_ [2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB)], that where the subject property has been converted as garden land/purayidom prior to coming into force of the 2008 Act, where the property holder has submitted an application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Utilization Order, 1967, seeking for permission for conversion of the subject property as garden land/purayidom and for its use for any non agricultural purposes before 30.12.2017 (date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act introducing Sec.27A thereof) in such cases, the respondent officer concerned is obliged to pass orders giving the beneficial provisions of Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Utilization Order, 1967 of the party concerned, without in any manner imposing any of the adverse conditions flowing from the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, including Sec.27A thereof and the Rules framed thereunder. 7. Further, the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgments in _**Mariumma’s**_ case (supra) [2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB)], and _**Tahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk v. Renjith**_ [2020 (1) KHC 865], **WP(C).No.8104 OF 2020(K)** **6** has held that in such a case after securing such orders under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 from the respondent RDO concerned, the property holder is equally entitled to legally maintain an application under Rule 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 seeking for orders for making additional entries in the BTR to show the property as the garden land/purayidom in respect of the earlier BTR entries as Nilam/paddy land without in any manner stipulating that the applicant will have to pay any additional amount that is flowing out from the amended provisions of the 2008 Act and the Rules framed thereunder. 8. In this case, the Act of the respondent officer concerned in not complying with the specific directions issued by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment rendered as early as on 2.6.2017 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 application dated 25.4.2017 within 2 months is itself a highly contumacious act in flagrant and blatant violation of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment. In a case like this, strict action under the contempt of courts Act and the Rules framed thereunder should have been called for to deal with such contumacious Act of the respondent officer concerned in blatantly disobeying Ext.P2 judgment and throwing it to the winds. 9. Going by the specific directions issued by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment dated 2.6.2017, orders under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order should have been passed by the respondent officer on **WP(C).No.8104 OF 2020(K)** **7** Ext.P1 application dated 25.4.2017 at least by the end of September 2017. But for reasons which are known only to the respondent, the respondent officer concerned has thrown the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment to the winds and is now taking advantage of their own wrong in stipulating that the party should now pay higher amounts that is flowing out of the amended provisions of the Act which has been introduced much later on 30.12.2017. It is well settled that so long as the application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 has been filed before 30.12.2017 and even if no orders are passed thereon by the respondent officer concerned on or before 30.12.2017, still the party concerned is entitled to get orders under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order in such a case, without having to pay any of the amounts conceived as per the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, including Section 27A thereof and Rules including that under Rule 12(17) of the amended Rules framed under the amended provisions of the 2008 Act. 10. It appears that Ext.P1 application has been remitted by the 1[st] respondent District Collector to the 2[nd] respondent Revenue Divisional officer as per Ext.P3 dated 19.6.2017 and now, the 2[nd] respondent Revenue Divisional Officer has passed the impugned Ext.P6 notice dated 20.12.2019 demanding that the petitioner should pay the huge amounts in terms of Rules framed under Sec.27A of the amended provisions of the Act as a condition precedent for passing orders under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land **WP(C).No.8104 OF 2020(K)** **8** Utilization Order, 1967 on Ext.P1 application. It is also common ground that the subject property has already been deleted from the land data bank as is referred to in Ext.P5 issued by the agricultural officer concerned, who is the convener of the LLMC. 11. Accordingly, it is ordered and declared that the orders passed by the 2[nd] respondent as per Ext.P6 is illegal, ultravires and unenforceable and has been issued by him in blatant and flagrant violation of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment as well as in the series of the aforecited judgments. In that view of the matter, it is only to be ordered and held that Ext.P6 order cannot even exist for a moment in the eye of law and therefore, Ext.P6 will stand quashed, set aside and rescinded. Ext.P1 application will stand remitted to the 2[nd] respondent Revenue Divisional Officer for consideration and decision afresh. The 2[nd] respondent, RDO will afford reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and then will pass orders under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 in the matter of formal permission for conversion of the subject property as garden land/purayidom and for its use for any non-agricultural purposes including the construction of any building, without any further delay, at any rate, within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment and without in any manner insisting that the petitioner should pay any amounts as conceived as per the amended provisions of the Rules framed under the amended provisions of the Act, 2008, which came **WP(C).No.8104 OF 2020(K)** **9** into force on 30.12.2017. 12. If the 2[nd] respondent, RDO unnecessarily again drives the petitioner to litigative proceedings before this Court, then this court may have to take a very serious view in the matter. The conduct on the part of the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents is blatantly violating the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment issued as early as on 2.6.2017, itself is very serious and this Court hopes and expects that the 2[nd] respondent, RDO will adhere to the rule of law and would show necessary respect and deference to the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment as well as the aforecited series of judgments referred to hereinabove. 13. Further, it is ordered that after the petitioner secures orders from the 2[nd] respondent, RDO under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 on Ext.P1 application, the petitioner will be at liberty to file appropriate application under Rule 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act before the 3[rd] respondent, Tahsildar seeking for the fresh assessment or re-assessment of the subject property so as to classify the said property as garden land/purayidom by making additional entries in the BTR instead of earlier entries as nilam/paddy land and such an application that has been filed by the petitioner should be considered and orders passed by the respondent Tahsildar concerned, in the light of the dictum laid down by the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in decisions as in _**Mariumma’s**_ case (supra) [2015 (1) KLT (DB)] and _**Renjith's** case_ **WP(C).No.8104 OF 2020(K)** **10** (supra) [2020 (1) KHC 865 (DB)] within one month from the date of submission of the said application, after the petitioner secures orders on Ext.P1 application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 etc. With these observations and directions, the above W.P.(C.) will stand disposed of. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** SKS **WP(C).No.8104 OF 2020(K)** **11** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION UNDER CLAUSE 6 (2) OF THE KERALA LAND UTILIZATION ORDER DATED 25.4.2017** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 18383/2017 OF THE HON'BE HIGH COURT** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF FORWARDING LETTER FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.6.2017** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FROM THE KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE DATED 31.7.2017** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER DATED 5.7.2018** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.12.2019**