High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-11-04Writ petition allowed; Ext.P9 set aside; direct...

Hameed and Shakeela v. The State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No.3744 of 2020

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date: 2020-11-04
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed; Ext. P9 order is set aside; the fifth respondent is directed to reassess the land as Purayidam/dry land and to issue appropriate orders changing the classification in the Basic Tax Register and revenue records without insisting on compliance with Section 27A or 27C of the Act and Rule 12, within two weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; Ext.P9 set aside; directions issued.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Hameed
Shakeela

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by the Principal Secretary to the Department of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
The District Collector, Kakkanad, Ernakulam
The Local Level Monitoring Committee, Nedumbassery Grama Panchayat
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi
The Tahsildar (Land Records), Aluva

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• George Sebastian (Advocate for Shakeela)

Counsels for Respondents

• SPL GP. MOHAMED ANZAR

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, a husband and wife owning land in Chengamanadu Village, challenged a condition in Ext. P6 requiring compliance with the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (Act 29 of 2018) after obtaining permission to change land use under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. The land, though shown as paddy land in revenue records, was non-cultivable when the Act came into force, thus the petitioners sought to avoid the Act's stringent requirements. The earlier order Ext. P6 directed compliance with Act 29 of 2018; Ext. P8 judgment later set aside that condition, directing reassessment of the land's status without insisting on those provisions. The petition also sought reassessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act and corrections in revenue records. The court relied on precedents Renji K. Paul v. RDO (2019) and Iype Varghese v. RDO (2020) to hold that where land was not in the data bank or where statutory permission for change of user existed, it would be unjust to apply the Act's sections retroactively. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, set aside Ext. P9, and directed the fifth respondent to reassess the property as Purayidam/dry land and update the revenue records without requiring compliance with sections 27A/27C or Rule 12, with a two-week deadline. These directions reflect a balancing approach, privileging property rights and existing permissions over retroactive application of the conservation scheme, while ensuring corrections in tax and land records to reflect the true status of the land. The judgment closes by clarifying that the reassessment and reclassification must be completed promptly to avoid further legal entanglements.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (the Act)Act 29 of 2018Section 27A of the ActSection 27C of the ActKerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland RulesRule 12Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization OrderKerala Land Utilization OrderKerala Land Tax ActAct 28 of 2008

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that Ext. P6's condition requiring compliance with Act 29 of 2018 cannot be imposed for land that was non-cultivable when the Act took effect; they seek to protect their prior permission under Clause 6(2) and insist that reassessment proceed without forcing adoption of 27A/27C or Rule 12 until data bank corrections are complete. They rely on the decisions in Renji K. Paul and Iype Varghese to argue that fresh assessment is the proper remedy rather than retroactive application of the conservation provisions.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue for upholding the statutory requirements and extension of the Act's framework, referencing Ext. P9 and the need to adjust revenue records and tax assessments according to the new classification. They rely on the Act and Rules and insist that reassessment should obey Sections 27A/27C and Rule 12, ensuring proper recording of Purayidam status.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Renji K. Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2019 (2) KLT 262	Positive	Court relied on this decision to hold that provisions pressuring land not in data bank cannot be pressed against such land.
Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2020 (5) KLT 403	Positive	Decision held that where statutory permission exists for change of user, fresh assessment should be made, guiding the current order.
W.P.(C) No.20570 of 2018	WP(C) No.20570 of 2018	Positive	Judgment relied upon (Ext.P8) indicating reassessment without enforcing 27A/27C; used as precedent.
I WPC 40491/2016	I WPC 40491/2016	Mentioned Only	Exhibit reference; not central to ratio; cited as background.
Contempt Case C 312/2018	C 312/2018	Mentioned Only	Exhibit reference; not central to ratio.

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 Hameed and Shakeela v. The State of Kerala 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR** # **WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.3744 OF 2020(P)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 HAMEED, AGED 68 YEARS S/O. KOCHU MUHAMMED, KUZHIKANDATHIL HOSE, CHENGAMANAD, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** - **2 SHAKEELA, AGED 55 YEARS W/O. HAMEED,, KUZHIKANDATHIL HOSE, CHENGAMANAD, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SHRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, 682 030.** - **3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, OF THE NEDUMBASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT (CONSTITUTED UNDER ACT 28 OF 2008), REPRESENTED BY IT CONVENER THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN,A NEDUMBASSERY, MEKKADU P.O. 683 589, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** - **4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI 682 001.** - **5 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), TALUK OFFICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM 683 101.** W.P.(C) No.3744 of 2020 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SPL GP. MOHAMED ANZAR** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.3744 of 2020 ..3.. ## **W.P.(C) No.3744 of 2020** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioners are husband and wife. They own a land measuring 83.85 Ares in Chengamanadu Village. Although the land of the petitioners is shown in the revenue records as paddy land, the same was lying as a dry land when the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (the Act) came into force. Since the land of the petitioners was not a cultivable paddy land when the above statute was introduced, the petitioners preferred an application under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order for permission to make use the land for other purposes. In terms of Ext.P6 order, the fourth respondent has granted the permission sought for by the petitioners, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall comply with the requirement of Act 29 of 2018, in terms of which the Act was amended. The petitioners challenged the condition aforesaid in Ext.P6 order before this court in W.P.(C) No.20570 of 2018. In the meanwhile, petitioners preferred an W.P.(C) No.3744 of 2020 ..4.. application before the fifth respondent for reassessment of the land under the Kerala Land Tax Act and for appropriate corrections in the revenue records pertaining to the classification of the land. In terms of Ext.P8 judgment, this court allowed W.P.(C) No.20570 of 2018 and set aside the condition aforesaid. This court also directed the fifth respondent, the competent authority under the Kerala Land Tax Act to make appropriate corrections in the revenue records pertaining to the property without referring to the provisions contained in Act 29 of 2018. Though the fifth respondent has, thereupon issued orders for correction of the classification of the land of the petitioners in the revenue records as dry land (Purayidam), it was ordered that the land will be reassessed on the petitioners submitting an application in the prescribed form under the Kerala Land Tax Rules and on payment of the fee prescribed in Rule 12(17) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules. Ext.P9 is the order issued by the fifth respondent in this connection. Ext.P9 order is under challenge in the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as W.P.(C) No.3744 of 2020 ..5.. also the learned Government Pleader. 3. Ext.P8 judgment indicates that the petitioners have preferred an application invoking clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order on 14.12.2016 and it is that application which was disposed of by the fourth respondent as per Ext.P6 order. In **Renji K. Paul** v. **Revenue Divisional Officer,** 2019 (2) KLT 262, this court held that if the holder of a land which is not included in the data bank prepared under the Act prefers an application for permission to make use of the land for other purposes under the Land Utilization Order before the coming into the force of the Act 29 of 2018 in terms of which Sections 27A and 27C were introduced to the Act, the said provisions cannot be pressed into service against such a land. It is on account of the said reason that this court, as per Ext.P8 judgment, set aside Ext.P6 order insofar as it directs the petitioners to comply with the requirements of Act 29 of 2018. In **Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer,** 2020 (5) KLT 403, this Court held that where statutory permission for change of user of land has been obtained for conversion of a paddy land to a garden land in terms of the provisions W.P.(C) No.3744 of 2020 ..6.. contained in the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, then it is the obligation of the competent authority under the Land Tax Act to make a fresh assessment of the land so as to collect the higher land tax for such converted land and to issue appropriate directions to the officers concerned to make additional entries in the Basic Tax Register so as to reflect the nature of the land as garden land/Purayidam in the said Register. In the light of the judgments aforesaid, the fifth respondent ought to have reassessed the land of the petitioners referred to in the writ petition as a dry land (Purayidam) and issued appropriate directions to the competent authority to change the classification of the land as dry land without insisting compliance of Section 27A or Section 27C of the Act and Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and Ext.P9 order is set aside and the fifth respondent is directed to reassess the land of the petitioners treating the same as Purayidam/dry land and issue appropriate orders directing the officers concerned to change the classification of the land in W.P.(C) No.3744 of 2020 **==> picture [20 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** the Basic Tax Register and other revenue records as Purayidam/dry land, without insisting compliance of Section 27A or Section 27C of the Act and Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules. This shall be done within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. **Sd/-** **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** ds W.P.(C) No.3744 of 2020 ..8.. ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO A3-8844/2016 DATED 15.12.2016 OF THE SECRETARY, NEDUMBASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH.** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14.11.2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT UNDER CLAUSE 6 (2) OF THE KERALA LAND UTILIZATION ORDER.** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.07.2017 I WPC 40491/2016.** - **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2018 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 13.04.2018.** - **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.06.2018 IN CONTEMPT CASES C 312/2018.** - **EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DAD 27/06/2019 IN WP NO. 20570/2018.** **EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.12.2019 PASSED BY THIS 5TH RESPONDENT.**