Beena Johnson @ Beena George v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Thodupuzha; Thahasildar, Thodupuzha Taluk; Village Officer, Thodupuzha

W.P. © No. 13721 of 2020 ..1.. ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1942 WP(C).No.13721 OF 2020(M)** ## **PETITIONER:** **BEENA JOHNSON @ BEENA GEORGE, AGED 57 YEARS, W/O. JOHNSON, PUTHENKULATHIL VEEDU, PERUMPILLYCHIRA, MUTHALAKODAM P O, PIN-685605. BY ADV. SMT.ANU S NAIR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,**| |---|---| ||**REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THODUPUZHA,**| ||**IDUKKI-685584.**| |**2**|**THAHASILDAR, THODUPUZHA TALUK, TALUK OFFICE,**| ||**THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685584.**| |**3**|**THE VILLAGE OFFICER,**| ||**THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685584.**| ||**SRI.K.J.MANU RAJ, GOVT.PLEADER**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P. © No. 13721 of 2020 ..2.. ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. --------------------------------------W.P. © No. 13721 of 2020 --------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of July, 2020 ## J U D G M E N T The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows: The petitioner highly aggrieved by the non-consideration of her anplication for re-assessment of land tax under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act 1961 and not making correction in the BTR showing the property as Purayidam instead of Nilam / Paddy Land. The petitioner filed application under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order 1967 on 4.5.2015 before coming into force of the amended Act 29 of 2018 (The Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008). The petitioner's application allowed vide Ext.P2 order dated 5.6.2018 by the 1[st] respondent Revenue Divisional officer. The Ext.P-1 application has clearly referred as item No.1 in Ext.P-2. Therefore it is clear that the amended Act and Rules 2018 is not applicable to the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner is entitled to make correction in the BTR making additional entries showing the nature of land as purayidam instead of Paddy land/ Nilam. It is in the W.P. © No. 13721 of 2020 ..3.. light of the abovesaid averments and contentions that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers: - _“_ - _i. To issue a writ of mandamus order or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2[nd] respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P3 application to re assess the Land tax under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act and to correct the Basic Tax Register showing the subject property covered by ExtP1 application and Ext P2 order under clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order 1967 without insisting for payment of any fee as provided under section 27 A (3) and Rule 12 (9) and Rule 12 (17) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008._ - _ii. To issue any other writs order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.”_ 2. Heard Smt.Anu S.Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.J.Manu Raj, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, the subject property has been converted as garden land/purayidam much prior to the coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008. Though the property continues to be described as nilam/paddy land in the Basic Tax Register (BTR). According to the petitioner, she has already secured Ext.P-2 order dated 5.6.2018 issued by the 1[st] respondent RDO whereby the plea of the petitioner in Ext.P-1 application filed under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967, (KLU Order) for permission for change of user of land has already been granted. Ext.P-2 would make it clear W.P. © No. 13721 of 2020 ..4.. that the same has been passed on Ext.P-1 application which has been filed on 4.5.2015. Hence, it is the case of the petitioner that since Ext.P-2 order under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order has been granted in an application filed as per Ext.P-1 much prior to the cut-off date of 30.12.2017 (date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act which has introduced Section 27A thereof), the petitioner is also entitled to get the consequential orders of reassessment from the 2[nd] respondent Tahsildar for securing additional entries in the BTR to show correctly the changed nature of land as garden land/purayidam, without paying the amounts as conceived as per the amended provisions of the 2008 Act and the rules framed thereunder, including Rule 12(17) thereof. With the said objective, the petitioner has filed Ext.P-3 application dated 25.6.2020 before the 2[nd] respondent Tahsildar seeking for re-assessment of subject property covered by Ext.P-2. 4. It is by now well established by a series of rulings of this Court 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.**_ W.P. © No. 13721 of 2020 ..5.. _**Mariumma [2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB)]**_ that in a case where the subject property has been converted as ‘garden land’ or ‘purayidam’ prior to 12.8.2008 (date of coming into force of the 2008 Act) and where the party concerned has filed the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 for conversion of the property and for its use for any non-agricultural purposes, before 30.12.2017 (which is the date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, which has introduced Sec. 27A thereof), then the statutory revenue authorities are obliged the duty to treat such a case strictly within the purview of Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order, 1967 and in such a case, the party cannot be mulcted to pay the higher amounts conceived as per the amended provisions of the Act including Sec. 27A thereof, which has come into force on 30.12.2017 and the amended Rules framed thereunder. Further, it has also been categorically held by the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court as in _**Mariumma’s case (supra) [2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB)] and Renji's case (supra) [2019 (2) KLT 262]**_ that in such a case where the property holder has filed application under Rule 6(2) of the KLU order before 30.12.2017, then the party is also equally entitled to maintain an application under Sec.6A of the Kerala W.P. © No. 13721 of 2020 ..6.. Land Tax Act, 1961, for securing additional entries in the BTR to show the property as ‘garden land’ or ‘purayidam’ instead of the earlier BTR entries as ‘nilam’ or ‘paddy land’ and without having to pay the higher amounts conceived as per the amended provisions of the 2008 Act including Sec. 27A thereof and the amended Rules framed thereunder. 5. Accordingly it is ordered that the 2[nd] respondent Tahsildar will immediately take up for consideration the matters raised in Ext.P-3 application dated 25.6.2020 and if it is found that the subject property covered by Ext.P-3 is the same as covered by Ext.P-2 order issued by the 1[st] respondent, then the 2[nd] respondent after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, should pass orders under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, for re-assessment of subject property in order to for securing additional entries in the BTR to show correctly the changed nature of land as garden land/purayidam instead of the earlier BTR entries as nilam/paddy land, within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment, and strictly in accordance with the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgments as in _**Mariumma’s case** supra_ and _**Renji's**_ W.P. © No. 13721 of 2020 ..7.. _**case** supra_ , and without compelling the petitioner to pay any amounts conceived as per the amended provisions of the Act including Sec. 27A thereof, which has come into force on 30.12.2017 and the amended Rules framed thereunder including Rule 12(17) thereof. 6. The abovesaid direction has been issued as it is seen from a reading of Ext.P-2 that the said permission under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order has been granted by the 1[st] respondent on the application filed by the petitioner on 4.5.2015, which is before the cut-off date of 30.12.2017. 7. The petitioner will produce certified copies of this judgment along with copies of memorandum of this WP(C) with all exhibits before the respondents for necessary information and further action. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE MMG W.P. © No. 13721 of 2020 ..8.. ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER CLAUSE 6(2) OF THE LAND UTILIZATION ORDER 1967 DATED 04.05.2015.** **EXHIBIT P2** **TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C13361/15 DATED 05.06.2018 GRANTING PERMISSION UNDER CLAUSE 6(2) OF LAND UTILIZATION ORDER 1967.** **EXHIBIT P3** **THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 6A OF THE KERALA LAND TAX ACT 1961 FOR RE ASSESSMENT OF LAND TAX DATED 25.06.2020.**