Jos Gold Traders and Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. The Tahasildar, Taluk Office, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam; Village Officer, Kakkanad Village, Kakkanad P.O., Ernakulam District (W.P.(C).No.10594/2020) & Josco Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. The Tahasildar, Taluk Office, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam; Village Officer, Kakkanad Village, Kakkanad P.O., Ernakulam District (W.P.(C).No.10599/2020)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.10594 OF 2020(Y)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **JOS GOLD TRADERS AND JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. 19/XII, KALARIKKAL BAZAR, THIRUNAKKARA, KOTTAYAM, 686 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.A. JOSE, S/O. ANTONY, AGED 71 YEARS, PAYAPILLI HOUSE, PUTHANANGADI, THIRUVATHUKKAL P.O. KOTTAYAM 686 003.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, 682 018. 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAKKANAD VILLAGE, KAKKANAD P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, 682 030.** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** ## **SRI.K.J.MANU RAJ, GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.06.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).10599/2020(Y), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ::2:: W.P(C).No.10594 & 10599 Of 2020 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.10599 OF 2020(Y)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **JOSCO JEWELLERS PVT. LTD XIII, RAJEEVA GANDHI MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, CENTRAL JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM-686001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.A.JOSE, S/O.ANTONY, AGED 71 YEARS, PAYAPILLI HOUSE, PUTHANANGADI, THIRUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOTTAYAM-686003.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE TAHASILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682018. 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAKKANAD VILLAGE, KAKKANAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682030.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.06.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).10594/2020(Y), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ::3:: W.P(C).No.10594 & 10599 Of 2020 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J** . ----------------------------- W.P(C).No.10594 & 10599 Of 2020 --------------------------------Dated this the 17[th] day of June, 2020. ## **J U D G M E N T** As common issues arise in these cases, these Writ Petitions are disposed of on the basis of this common judgment. ## 2. The prayers in W.P.(C).No.10594/2020 are as follows: - _“(i) issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ, Orders or directions, commanding the 1[st] respondent to change the Basic Tax Register in respect of the petitioner's property covered by Exhibit P-1 & P-2 documents by considering P-6 application as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;_ - _(ii) Render such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”_ 3. The prayers in W.P.(C).No.10599/2020 are as follows: - _“(i) issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ, Orders or directions, commanding the 1[st] respondent to change the Basic Tax Register in respect of the petitioner's property covered by Exhibits P-1 to P-7 documents by considering Exhibit P-12 application as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;_ - _(ii) Render such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”_ 4. Heard Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, learned counsel for the petitioners in these cases and Sri.K.J.Manu Raj, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in these cases. ::4:: W.P(C).No.10594 & 10599 Of 2020 5. It is indisputable in these cases that the subject properties though described as nilam in the Basic Tax Register (BTR), the same have been converted as garden land/purayidam much prior to 12.8.2008 (date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008). Further the petitioners in these cases have filed requisite applications under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLU) before the notified Collector/RDO seeking for statutory permit under that Rule for change of user of the land well before 30.12.2017 (date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, introduced as per Sec.27A thereof). As a matter of fact, both the petitioners have even secured the necessary statutory permit in terms of Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order before the notified Collector/RDO concerned as can be seen from Ext.P-9 order dated 10.6.2009 and Ext.P-10 order dated 20.2.2011 issued by the RDO, Fort Kochi. A reading of Exts.P-9 & P- 10 would make it clear that the petitioner has filed the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the KLU much before the abovesaid cut off date of 30.12.2017. So also, the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 10594/2020 has secured the statutory requisite permission in terms of Ext.P-4 order dated 10.2.2011 issued by the RDO, Fort Kochi and a reading of the said order would also make it clear that the application ::5:: W.P(C).No.10594 & 10599 Of 2020 under Rule 6(2) has been filed much before the cut off date of 30.12.2017. Now, the petitioners in these cases have filed requisite applications under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act as per Ext.P-12 dated 18.3.2020 in W.P.(C).No.10599/2020 before the 1[st] respondent-Tahsildar and Ext.P-6 application dated 18.3.2020 [produced in W.P.(C).No.10594/2020] before the 1[st] respondentTahsildar. The case of the petitioners is that the said applications seeking re-assessment of the property under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act for securing additional entries in the BTR showing the changed nature of the property as garden land/purayidam are lying unattended and the petitioners apprehend that it is the consistent practice of the revenue officials that parties like the petitioners will be compelled to pay higher amounts as conceived as per the amjended provisions of the 2008 Act which has been introduced as per Sec.27A thereof and the amended Rules under the 2008 Act as a condition precedent for entertaining such applications. As a matter of fact, the abovesaid statutory orders passed by the RDO concerned under Rule 6(2) of the KLU in these cases are rendered even much prior to the cut off date of 30.12.2017. 6. It is by now well settled by a series of rulings of this Court that where the subject property has been converted as Garden Land ::6:: W.P(C).No.10594 & 10599 Of 2020 or Purayidam prior to 12.08.2008 (date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008) and where the property holder has filed the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order for change of user of the land, before 30.12.2017 (date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, which has introduced Sec.27A thereof, then in such a case, the property holder is entitled to get his request is considered in terms of Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order and in such a case none of the adverse provisions contained in the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, including Sec.27A thereof and the amended Rule framed thereunder can be enforced as against such a property holder. In other words, the application under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order has to be considered strictly in terms of that provision and without insisting for the amounts conceived as per the amended provisions of the 2008 Act including Sec.27A thereof and the amended provisions of the Rules (refer _**Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer**_ [2019 (3) KLT 838], _**Renjith K.Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer**_ [2019 (2) KLT 262], _**Tahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk and another v. Renjth George**_ [2020 (1) KHC 865 (DB)] _**LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath and others v. Mariumma and another**_ [2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB), etc.]. ::7:: W.P(C).No.10594 & 10599 Of 2020 7. Further, in the aforesaid judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in _**Mariyumma’s**_ case (supra) and _**Renjth George's**_ case (supra), it has also been held that in such a case where the property holder has filed the application under Rule 6(2) before 30.12.2017 and after securing such orders under Rule 6(2), the party concerned is also entitled to get the subject property assessed/re-assessed under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, so as to secure additional entries in the BTR to show the change of nature of the land as garden land or purayidam instead of the earlier BTR entries as paddy land or Nilam. 8. Accordingly it is ordered and declared that since the petitioners in these cases have filed requisite applications under Rule 6(2) of the KLU well before the cut off date of 30.12.2017, they are entitled to get their application considered under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act for re-assessment of the subject property for securing additional entries in the BTR to show the changed nature of the land as garden land/purayidam without having to pay higher amounts as conceived as per the amended provisions of the Act and the amended Rules thereunder including Rule 12(17) thereof. The position in that regard is all the more ::8:: W.P(C).No.10594 & 10599 Of 2020 clear like the day light in view of the dictum laid down by the aforecited judgment, more particularly the judgment of the Division Bench in _**LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath and others v. Mariumma and another**_ [2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB), _**Tahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk and another v. Renjth George**_ [2020 (1) KHC 865 (DB)], etc. 9. Accordingly, it is ordered that the 1[st] respondentTahsildar will immediately take up the matters raised in Ext.P-12 application dated 18.3.2020 [produced in W.P.(C).No. 10599/2020] and Ext.P-6 application dated 18.3.2020 in W.P.(C). No.10594/2020 for consideration without much delay and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the respective petitioners through their authorised representatives/counsel, if any, should pass orders of reassessment of the subject property in terms of Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, so as to show the changed nature of the land as garden land/purayidam instead of the earlier BTR entries as nilam/paddy land, provided the subject properties covered by those applications under Sec.6A are the same as the properties covered by Rule 6(2) statutory orders [Exts.P-9 & P-10 in W.P.(C).No.10599/2020 and Ext.P-4 in W.P.(C).No.10594/2020) without much delay, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of ::9:: W.P(C).No.10594 & 10599 Of 2020 this judgment. This shall be so considered by the 1st respondentTahsildar strictly in terms of the dictum laid down by the Division Bench in _**LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath and others v. Mariumma and another**_ [2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB) and without making the petitioners to pay any higher amounts as conceived as per the amended provisions of the Act and the Rules including Sec.27A thereof and Rule 12(17) of the Rules, provided the subject property covered by Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act are the same as those covered by the aforesaid statutory orders passed under Rule 6(2) of the KLU as aforesaid. The petitioners will produce certified copies of this judgment along with copies of the memorandum of the Writ Petition with all exhibits before the 1[st] respondent-Tahsildar for necessary information and further action. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petitions will stand finally disposed of. **Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, Judge.** bkn/- ::10:: W.P(C).No.10594 & 10599 Of 2020 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10594/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 824/2008 OF S.R.O. THRIKKAKARA.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO. 2465/2008 OF S.R.O. THRIKKAKARA.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 13/03/2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 8662/K.DIS DATED 10.02.2011 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. BA/754/16-17 DATED 9.5.2017. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED ON 18.03.2020 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** ::11:: W.P(C).No.10594 & 10599 Of 2020 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10599/2020** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2659/2007 OF S.R.O.THRIKKAKARA. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.4437/2007 OF S.R.O.THRIKKAKARA. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.4048/07 OF S.R.O.THRIKKAKARA. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.3840/2007 OF S.R.O.THRIKKAKARA. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.3814/07 OF S.R.O.THRIKKAKARA. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.2906/07 OF S.R.O.THRIKKAKARA. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.3656/07 OF S.R.O.THRIKKAKARA. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPOSITE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 13.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.220/09/K.DIS DATED 10.06.2009 OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.9030/K.DIS DATED 10.02.2011 OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.BA/754/16-17 DATED 09.05.2017. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED ON 18.03.2020 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**