High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetition disposed; Ext.P6 set aside; Tahsildar ...

Confident Projects India Pvt Ltd. v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, The Sub Collector Revenue Divisional Office, Kudappanakkunnu, The Tahsildar (Land Records), Taluk Office, Thiruvananthapuram, and The Village Officer, Kadakampally Village

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO.27996 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date
2022-10-06
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition disposed of. Ext.P6 order set aside. 3rd respondent-Tahsildar to consider Ext.P4 application submitted in Form-A and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within six weeks.
Final Disposition
Petition disposed; Ext.P6 set aside; Tahsildar to consider Ext.P4 Form-A and pass orders within six weeks.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • CONFIDENT PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD.

Respondents

  • The District Collector Civil Station, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 043
  • The Sub Collector Revenue Divisional Office, Civil Station, Kudappanakkunnu, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 043
  • The Tahsildar (Land Records) Taluk Office, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 004
  • The Village Officer Kadakampally Village, Kadakampally, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 029

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • S.SHANAVAS KHAN

Counsels for Respondents

  • • SRI.S.RANJITH, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER TO AAG

Case Synopsis & Summary

Confident Projects India Pvt Ltd., a private limited company, challenges Ext.P6, a communication from the Sub Collector directing the petitioner to file Form-7 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 to change the land’s nature in revenue records. The petitioner owns 30.98 acres in Survey No.1285/2, Kadakampally Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. The land is dry but is recorded as Nilam in revenue records. The petitioner sought to use the land for non-agricultural purposes and obtained permission under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, via Ext.P2, dated 04.12.2015, from the Revenue Divisional Officer, subject to conditions. This permission enabled the construction of a multi-storey apartment complex; Occupancy Certificates were issued by the local self-government. The petitioner also submitted Ext.P4 in Form-A under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, seeking reassessment and corrections in the Basic Tax Register regarding land nature. Ext.P5 was the representation dated 09/06/2022, followed by Ext.P6. The Government Pleader argued that change of land type in revenue records required compliance with the 2008 Rules; the petitioner argued Ext.P6 was unwarranted as relief flowed from LOU 1967 and LTA 1961. The High Court held that the petitioner invoked Clause 6(2) LOU 1967, and that the Tahsildar must consider Ext.P4 Form-A and pass orders; Ext.P6 is set aside. The court relied on Joseph Uppani and Iype Varghese to justify reassessment possibilities.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext.P6 requiring Form-7 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 is unwarranted because permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (LOU) and the consequential reassessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 already permitted non-agricultural use. It is argued that the order under LOU 1967, extant since 2015 (Ext.P2), plus occupancy of the apartments, suffices and there is no need to invoke the 2008 Rules. The petitioner seeks to have Ext.P4 Form-A considered under the LTA, 1961 and for entries in the Basic Tax Register consistent with the nature of land.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that the change of land use in revenue records for Paddy Land must be done under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, and Ext.P6 cannot be impugned on grounds argued by the petitioner. They contend that permission under the LOU 1967 is a prerequisite and that verification under the 2008 Rules is necessary if the nature of land in the revenue records is to be altered, given the land’s Paddy land status.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Joseph Uppani v. District Collector2020 (3) KLT 492PositiveCited as supportive authority for not penalizing the party and for considering reassessment under amended provisions; the decision supports the petitioner's basis that relief flows from established LOU/LOU-based permissions.
Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer2020 (6) KHC 770PositiveCited to support that orders under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 can lead to fresh land tax reassessment and Basic Tax Register entries.

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 Confident Projects India Pvt Ltd. v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram, The Sub Collector Revenue Divisional Office, Kudappanakkunnu, The Tahsildar (Land Records), Taluk Office, Thiruvananthapuram, and The Village Officer, Kadakampally Village 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`** ``` THURSDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 14TH ASWINA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 27996 OF 2022 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` CONFIDENT PROJECTS INDIA PVT LTD. CONFIDENT HOUSE, 868/2, S.A.ROAD, VYTTILA, KOCHI - 19 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR T.A.JOSEPH, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.LATE ALEXANDER THERUVIPARAMBIL, 33/2652D, THERUVIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VENNALA P.O., KOCHI, ERNAKULAM - 682 028. ``` ## **`BY ADV S.SHANAVAS KHAN`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043.`** - **`2 THE SUB COLLECTOR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043.`** - **`3 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS) TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.`** - **`4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE, KADAKAMPALLY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 029.`** ``` BY ADV. ``` ``` SRI.S.RANJITH, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER TO AAG ``` ## **`WP(C) NO.27996 OF 2022`** ``` 2 ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO.27996 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 6[th] day of October, 2022 The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, is before this Court aggrieved by Ext.P6 order of the Sub Collector wherein the petitioner was required to submit an application in Form-7 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008 in order to change the nature of land in Revenue records. 2. The Managing Director of the petitioner-Company states that he is the land owner of 30.98 Ares of land situated in Survey No.1285/2 of Kadakampally Village of Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. It is stated that the land in question is a dry land, but in Revenue records the land was classified as 'Nilam'. As the petitioner wanted to use the land for other purposes, the petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application invoking Clause 6(2) of Kerala Land Utilisation ``` WP(C) NO.27996 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` Order, 1967. The said application was allowed by the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext.P2 proceedings dated 04.12.2015 on conditions. 3. The petitioner states that on the basis of the permissions obtained, the petitioner has constructed a multi-storied apartment complex and has allotted the apartment units to prospective buyers. Occupancy Certificates were also issued by the Local Self Government Institution. Ext.P3 is the list of occupants holding apartment units with Occupancy Certificate in the petitioner's building. 4. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application in FormA of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, seeking reassessment of the land tax and to make necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register as regards the nature of the land of the petitioner. 5. On submission of Ext.P5, the petitioner has now been served with Ext.P6 communication of the Sub Collector requiring the petitioner to file a Form-7 application under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and ``` WP(C) NO.27996 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` Wetland Rules, 2008. The petitioner states that Ext.P6 is unwarranted, as the petitioner's application is based on an order passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 and is invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. 6. The Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that Ext.P6 communication has been made on the basis of an application submitted by the petitioner. If the petitioner wants to change the nature of the land in Revenue records, since the land was a paddy land, the petitioner has to make necessary application under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. Therefore, Ext.P6 cannot be impugned on any of the grounds urged by the petitioner, contended the Government Pleader. 7. The Government Pleader submitted that permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order is granted on a ``` WP(C) NO.27996 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` condition that the petitioner has to start construction within a period of one year. Therefore, unless the petitioner establishes that the petitioner has started the construction within a period of one year as stipulated in Ext.P2, the petitioner cannot insist that they need not invoke the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader representing the respondents. 9. It is evident that the petitioner has invoked clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 seeking permission to use the land for non-agricultural purposes. The petitioner's application has been allowed and Ext.P2 permission was granted to the petitioner to use the land for non-agricultural purposes. In Ext.P2, the Sub Collector has found that the surrounding areas are not thickly cultivated and there are absolutely no paddy fields around the property of the petitioner. In the afore circumstances, the Revenue Divisional Officer has ``` WP(C) NO.27996 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` granted permission under clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 for using the land for non-agricultural purposes. 10. In _**Joseph Uppani v. District Collector** [2020 (3) KLT 492]_ , this Court considered the issue and held that a party cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay higher amounts conceived as per the amended provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 which has came into force on 30.12.2017. In _**Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer** [2020 (6) KHC 770]_ , this Court held that when orders are secured under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, property can be subjected to fresh assessment of land tax and thereafter additional entries can be made in the Basic Tax Register. 11. When the petitioner after obtaining permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, has made application for reassessment of tax on the land and to make necessary entries in the Revenue records, invoking the provisions of the ``` 8 ``` Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, the Tahsildar is bound to consider the same in accordance with law. There is no justification for the Tahsildar to force the petitioner to avail the remedy under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3[rd] respondent-Tahsildar to consider Ext.P4 application submitted by the petitioner in Form-A and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of six weeks. Ext.P6 order is set aside. **Sd/-** **N.NAGARESH JUDGE** sss ``` WP(C) NO.27996 OF 2022 ``` ``` 9 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27996/2022`** ## **`PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P1 ``` ``` Exhibit P2 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06/10/2015 IN WP(C) NO.28160/2015 OF THE HON'BLE COURT. ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1 1- 11390/2015 DATED 04/12/2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ``` ``` Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF OCCUPANTS OF THE APARTMENT 'CONFIDENT GOLD COAST B'. Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF HE APPLICATION IN FOR A IN RESPECT OF 30.98 ARES IN SURVEY NO.1285/2 OF KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE. Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09/06/2022 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.8168/22-14 DATED 10/08/2022 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ``` ``` WP(C) NO.27996 OF 2022 ``` ``` 10 ```