High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-11-08Writ petitions ordered accordingly.

Chathamkulam Projects and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Tahsildar (Land Records), Palakkad Taluk; Village Officer Kannadi II Village, Kannadi P.O., Palakkad District

Case / Petition Number:WP(C). Nos. 21992 and 22069 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Honourable Mrs. Justice Anu Sivaraman
Judgment Date: 2021-11-08
Court Decision / Holding: There shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to take up and consider Exhibit P7 application preferred by the petitioner, in light of the judgments referred to above, and pass appropriate orders after verifying whether the land covered by Exhibit P7 has been subject to Exhibit P3 order. If the applications are allowed, the property shall be included in the BTR as puriyadom and not as converted land, in view of the Kerala Land Tax Act. The entire proceedings shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petitions ordered accordingly.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Chathamkulam Projects and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Respondents

The Tahsildar (Land Records), Palakkad Taluk
The Village Officer Kannadi II Village, Kannadi P.O., Palakkad District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Binoy Vasudevan

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Appu P.S., Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, in WP(C) Nos. 21992 of 2021 and 22069 of 2021, heard petitions by Chathamkulam Projects and Developers Pvt. Ltd. through its managing director seeking relief regarding the tax classification and entry of land in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) following a land conversion. The petitioner asserted ownership and possession of portions of land in Kannadi II Village, Palakkad Taluk (8.05 cents in Re-Survey No. 281/7 and 11.12 cents in Resurvey No. 287/39, part of a larger 0.2130 hectares tract) for which the RDO had issued Exhibit P3 order under a Kerala Land Utilization/Conversion framework permitting residential construction. The land was not reflected in the finalized data bank, and the petitioner sought consideration of Exhibit P7 under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act to reassess and modify entries in the tax records, arguing the land should be shown as puriyadom rather than converted land, as the latter classification is not permissible under the relevant statutes. The petitioners rely on precedents from this Court, notably District Collector, Ernakulam v. Fr. Jose Uppani and Iype Varghese v. RDO, to support reclassification and entry changes. After hearing the Government Pleader, the Court held that the Ext.P7 application must be considered under law, with verification of property identity and conversion details, and directed the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders within two months, including updating the BTR to reflect puriyadom (not converted land).

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax ActRule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax RulesKerala Land Tax Act (general principles)Kerala Land Tax Rules (general applicability)KLU order (Kerala Land Utilisation/Conversion)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext. P7 under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act should be considered, as the land was not included in the finalized data bank and a reassessment is warranted after conversion under Exhibit P3 for construction. The petitioner seeks reclassification in the Basic Tax Register, arguing that the land should be shown as puriyadom rather than converted land, since no such classification exists under the relevant enactments, and relies on Division Bench precedents to support the approach.

Contentions of Respondents

The Respondents’ counsel ( Government Pleader) argued for due process under the statutory framework and verification of facts (identity of land, conversion status, and entries in the data bank) before updating tax records; the need to follow the law and the cited precedents was acknowledged by the bench.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others	2020 (4) KLT 612	Positive	The Division Bench decision is cited as directly governing the proper consideration of Ext.P7 under Section 6A and guiding the entry in the Basic Tax Register.
Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki and others	2020 (5) KLT 403	Positive	Cited as supportive authority for the approach to reclassification and tax-entry adjustments under the Section 6A framework.

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 Chathamkulam Projects and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Tahsildar (Land Records), Palakkad Taluk; Village Officer Kannadi II Village, Kannadi P.O., Palakkad District 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 MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **MONDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 21992 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** CHATHAMKULAM PROJECTS AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD N. H. BYEPASS ROAD, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, C. B. SUMESH BABU, S/O. BHAVADAS, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO.9/149, CHATHAMKULAM HOUSE, KONGAD P. O., PALAKKAD - 678 631. BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS) PALAKKAD TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 679 001. 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KANNADI II VILLAGE, KANNADI P. O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 701. SRI. APPU P.S. GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).22069/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).Nos.21992 AND 22069 OF 2021 2 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN MONDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 22069 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER:** CHATHAMKULAM PROJECTS AND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD N.H BYPASS ROAD, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, C.B SUMESH BABU, S/O. BHAVADAS, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 9/149, CHATHAMKULAM HOUSE, KONGAD P.O, PALAKKAD 678 631 BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE TAHSILDAR,(LAND RECORDS) PALAKKAD TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD 679 001 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KANNADI II VILLAGE, KANNADI P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 701 SRI. APPU.P.S-GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).21992/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).Nos.21992 AND 22069 OF 2021 3 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Dated this the 8[th] day of November 2021** The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of 8.05 cents of land in Re-Survey No. 281/7 (old survey No.119A/4B and 119/4A) of Kannadi II Village of Palakkad Taluk in Palakkad district and 11.12 cents of land in ReSurvey No. 287/39 (old survey No.119E) of the same village . It is submitted that the property purchased by the petitioner was a part of the property having an extent of 0.2130 Hectors (52.61 cents) in respect of which Ext.P3 order (in both writ petitions) had been passed by the RDO under the KLU order permitting conversion for construction of a residential building. It is submitted that the land is not included in the finalized notified data bank. The petitioner has thereafter submitted Ext.P7 application (in both writ petitions) before the 1[st] respondent and seeks a consideration of the same in terms of Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue stands squarely covered by the decision of a WP(C).Nos.21992 AND 22069 OF 2021 **==> picture [7 x 7] intentionally omitted <==** Division Bench of this Court in **District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others [2020 (4) KLT 612]** . It is submitted that the 1[st] respondent is duty bound to consider Ext.P7 application exercising powers under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act. It is submitted that necessary additional entries will have to be made in the Basic Tax Register maintained in terms of Rule 4 of the Kerala Land Tax Rules to show the change in nature of the land and a reassessment will have to be effected in respect of the properties in question. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the entry to be made in the revenue records should not be as 'converted land', since there is no such classification of land as provided in the relevant enactments and that in view of the conversion duly carried out by the petitioner, the land should be shown as 'garden land/dry land/purayidom' in the altered Basic Tax Register. 4. Having heard the learned Government Pleader also, I am of the opinion that the application submitted by the WP(C).Nos.21992 AND 22069 OF 2021 5 petitioner is liable to be considered in accordance with law, taking note of the judgments of this Court in **District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others [2020 (4) KLT 612]** and in **Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki and others [2020 (5) KLT 403].** 5. In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 1[st] respondent to take up and consider Exhibit P7 application preferred by the petitioner, in the light of the judgments referred to above and pass appropriate orders on the same after verifying whether the land covered by Exhibit P7 application, is property for which Exhibit P3 order has been issued. All relevant aspects of the matter including the nature and identity of the property and the fact whether the conversion had been carried out pursuant to Exhibit P3 order shall be verified by the 1[st] respondent. In case the applications are allowed, the property shall be included in the BTR as puriyadom and not as converted land, in view of the fact that no such classification is permissible in WP(C).Nos.21992 AND 22069 OF 2021 6 view of the Kerala land Tax Act. The entire proceedings shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. These writ petitions are ordered accordingly. **Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** SSK/08/11 WP(C).Nos.21992 AND 22069 OF 2021 7 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21992/2021** PETITIONER EXHIBITS |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1804/2010 OF| |---|---| ||S.R.O.KODUVAYUR DATED 02.06.2010.| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED| ||18.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.J-1330/2008| ||DATED 24.03.2008.| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE| ||NOTIFIED DATA BANK OF KANNADI II VILLAGE| ||PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE DATED| ||28.01.2021.| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE| ||PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED| ||10.08.2020.| |Exhibit P5(a)|TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD| ||EVIDENCING SUBMISSION OF EXHIBIT P5 REQUEST.| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.06.2018 IN| ||W.P.(C) NO.16536 OF 2018.| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF FORM A SUBMITTED BY THE| ||PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED| ||14.09.2021.| **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** SSK //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE WP(C).Nos.21992 AND 22069 OF 2021 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22069/2021** ## PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 3546/2011 OF S.R.O KODUVAYUR DATED 02-11-2011. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 27-12-2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. J- 192/2011 DATED 02-02-2011 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NOTIFIED DATA BANK OF KANNADI II VILLAGE PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE DATED 27-012021. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10-08-2020 Exhibit P5A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD EVIDENCING SUBMISSION OF EXHIBIT P-5 REQUEST. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25-06-2018 IN W.P(C) NO. 16536 OF 2018 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF FORM A SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 14-09-2021 ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** SSK //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE