High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-10-21Writ petition allowed; direct to consider Ext.P...

Binil Raj v. The District Collector, Ernakulam District and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 29473 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2022-10-21
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed. The 3rd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 Form-A application, and pass appropriate orders within one month. In view of KPV Reality Private Limited v. State of Kerala and others (2022 (5) KHC 513), respondents 2 to 4 are directed to reassess and reclassify the petitioner’s land as “purayidam/dry land” if Form A is allowed.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; direct to consider Ext.P3 and, if Form A is allowed, reassess and reclassify land; orders to be issued within one month.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Binil Raj

Respondents

The District Collector, Ernakulam District, Collectorate, Kakkanad, Ernakulam District
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Mini Civil Station, Mudavoor P.O, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam District
The Tahsildar (Land Records), Kunnathunadu Taluk, Taluk Office, Perumbavoor, Ernakulam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Anish Paul
• Adv. K.V. Suresh Kumar

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Vidya KuriaKose, Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Binil Raj, seeks redress for the omission of the 3rd respondent Tahsildar in entertaining his Form-A application under Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, for reassessment of Basic Tax and updating entries in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) after an enabling order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLU Order) was issued in 2015. The predecessor-in-interest obtained Ext. P2 under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order permitting non-agricultural use of land comprising 13.28 acres in Re-Survey No.9/7-2-2, Block 35, Kunnathunadu, Ernakulam District. Despite this enabling order, the land remains described as paddy land in revenue records, and Ext. P3 was not acted upon by the Tahsildar. The respondents contend that Ext. P2’s genuineness and current status require verification before any reassessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. The court relies on the principles from Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala and others (2020) and District Collector, Ernakulam v. Fr. Jose Uppani (2020) that post-enabling-order reassessment is required, and earlier BTR classifications become redundant. The bench also notes the KPV Reality Private Limited v. State of Kerala (2022) guidance. The writ petition is allowed, directing consideration of Ext. P3 within one month and, if Form A is allowed, reassessment and reclassification of land as purayidam/dry land.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar did not entertain Ext.P3 Form-A under Section 6(3) of the KLA despite Ext.P2 under Clause 6(2) of the KLU Order, 1967, which permitted non-agricultural use. He seeks reassessment of Basic Tax and updated BTR entries. Referencing Mary Abraham and Uppani, he argues that once an enabling order exists, old BTR entries become superfluous and a fresh assessment under Section 6A is required; the land’s nature should be recalibrated to reflect the changed status.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend Ext.P2 is from 2015 and its genuineness and the current land status must be verified before any reassessment. The Senior Government Pleader argues for verification of Ext.P2’s authenticity and current classification, asserting that reassessment must align with the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and the Kerala Land Tax Act.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala and others	2020 (4) KLT 448	Positive	Court relies on this authority to hold that after an enabling order under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order, 1967, earlier BTR entries are redundant and a fresh assessment under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 is required.
District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others	2020 (4) KLT 612	Positive	Division Bench held that where enabling orders prior to the 27A cut-off date exist, subsequent LTA applications must be considered; supports reassessment under the LTA.
K.P.V. Reality Private Limited v. State of Kerala and others	2022 (5) KHC 513	Positive	Cited to direct the reassessment and reclassification if Form A is allowed; reinforces the remedial pathway after enabling orders.
Renji K. Paul and another v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2019(2) KHC 241	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P4 is a cited judgment in the Appendix; not central to the main reasoning.
Judgement dated 02.12.2020 in W.P.C No. 26769/2020	—	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P5 listed; cited as material but not central to the core reasoning.

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 Binil Raj v. The District Collector, Ernakulam District 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 21[ST] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022/ 29TH ASWINA, 1944 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 29473 OF 2022 ``` ## _`PETITIONERS`_ ``` BINIL RAJ AGED 30 YEARS S/O N.K RAJU, NEELANGAL HOUSE, MEPRATHUPADY, VENGOLA P.O. ARAKAPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683556 BY ADVS. ANISH PAUL K.V.SURESH KUMAR ``` ## _`RESPONDENTS`_ |_`1`_|_`THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR`_| |---|---| ||_`ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,`_| ||_`COLLECTORATE,KAKKANAD,`_| ||_`ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030`_| |_`2`_|_`THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER`_| ||_`REVENUE DIVISONAL OFFICE,`_| ||_`MINI CIVIL STATION,MUDAVOOR P.O,`_| ||_`MUVATTUPUZHA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686669`_| |_`3`_|_`THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS)`_| ||_`KUNNATHUNADU TALUK,`_| ||_`TALUK OFFICE,PERUMBAVOOR,`_| ||_`PERMBAVOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.`_| ||_`PIN- 683542`_| W.P(C) No.29473 of 2022 2 ] ``` 4THE VILLAGE OFFICER KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE OFFICE, PALLIKKARA, KUMARAPURAM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683565 ``` ``` OTHER PRESENT: ``` ``` SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` W.P(C) No.29473 of 2022 3 ] ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 21[st] day of October, 202 **2** The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the omission of the 3[rd] respondent-Tahsildar in entertaining an application submitted by the petitioner for re-assessment of rate of Basic Tax of land and for making necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register. 2. The petitioner is owner of 13.28 Ares of property in Re-Survey No.9/7-2-2 in Block No.35 of Kunnathunadu Village in Ernakulam District. The predecessor-in-interest of the land approached the Revenue Divisional Officer invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 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 Utilisation Order, 1967 permitting to use the land for non-agricultural purposes. W.P(C) No.29473 of 2022 4 ] 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though Ext.P2 order was passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 in the year 2015, the land of the petitioner is not re-assessed for fixing rate of Basic Tax and the property of the petitioner is still described as paddy land in the Revenue records. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application invoking Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 seeking to re-assess the 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 petitioner has 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 petitioner in the writ petition. It is submitted that Ext.P2 proceedings are of the year 2015. The veracity and the genuineness of Ext.P2 proceedings under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 is liable to be W.P(C) No.29473 of 2022 5 ] verified. The present status of the land will 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 petitioner 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. W.P(C) No.29473 of 2022 6 ] 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 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 petitioner has been permitted to be changed pursuant to passing of 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 consequential entries in the Basic Tax Register, if necessary, after verifying the veracity/genuineness of the order produced by the petitioner. W.P(C) No.29473 of 2022 ] 7 The writ petition is therefore allowed. The 3[rd] respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 Form-A application submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of one month. In view of the judgment of this Court in _**K.P.V. Reality Private Limited v. State of Kerala and others** [2022 (5) KHC 513],_ there will be a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to reassess and reclassify the petitioner’s land as “purayidam/dry land”, if the Form A application is allowed. Sd/- ## **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** smm W.P(C) No.29473 of 2022 8 ] ## _`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29473/2022`_ ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 28.05.2022 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2015 OF 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER CLAUSE 6(2) OF KLU ORDER, 1967 ``` ``` Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 06.08.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ``` ``` Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPORTED JUDGEMENT DATED 14.02.2019 IN W.P.C NO. 6939/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT (RENJI K. PAUL AND ANOTHER V. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER 2019(2) KHC 241 ) ``` ``` Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 02.12.2020 IN W.P.C NO. 26769/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT ```