Josegold Traders and Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Civil Station, Ayyanthole, Thrissur; The Village Officer, Ayyanthole Village, Thrissur District

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.9070 OF 2020(G)** ## **PETITIONER:** **JOSEGOLD TRADERS AND JEWELLERS PVT. LTD KALARIKKAL BAZAR, 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** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, 680 003. 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, 680 003.** **BY ADVS. SRI.JESTIN MATHEW, GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(C). No. 9070 of 2020 2 ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. -----------------------------------W.P(C). No. 9070 of 2020 -----------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of March, 2020 ## **JUDGMENT** The case set up in this writ petition (C) is as follows: The petitioner who is a private limited company is the absolute owner in possession of a parcel of land in Ayyanthole Village in Thrissur Taluk covered by Exts.P1 and P2 documents. The property was included in the data bank prepared in terms of Act 28 of 2008 as a converted land. Hence the petitioner preferred an application under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 which was allowed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Subsequently they preferred an application before the Local Level Monitoring Committee and the said property was excluded from the data bank as evident by Exts.P4 and P4(a). There was a confusion with respect to the procedure for correction the BTR after the introduction of Sec.27A. However a Division Bench of this Court in _**Tahsildar**_ ## _**Thodupuzha Taluk and Another v. Renjith George 2020 (1)**_ _**KHC 865)**_ had declared that those persons who obtained permission under Clause 6(2) before the introduction of 27 A need W.P(C). No. 9070 of 2020 3 not follow the course under the said Act. Hence the petitioner preferred Ext.P6 application before the 1[st] respondent. This writ petition is being preferred feeling aggrieved by the inordinate delay on the part of the 1[st] respondent in not disposing the application. It is in the light of these averments and contentions, that the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition (C) seeking the following prayers: - _(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 property covered by Exts.P1 and P2 documents by considering Ext.P6 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court._ - _(ii) Render such other orders or directions as this Honourable Court may deem just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case._ 2. Heard Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Justine Mathew, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 3. In this case, it is beyond any dispute that the subject property was converted as garden land or purayidam much prior to 12-08-2008, which is the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. So also it is beyond any dispute that the petitioner in fact has submitted the requisite application under Rule 6 (2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation W.P(C). No. 9070 of 2020 4 Order (KLU Order), 1967 before the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned, much before 30-12-2017 (which is the date of coming into force of the amended provisions of 2008 Act, which was introduced Sec.27 A thereof and which later led to the framing of the amended rules thereunder). That the fact that the petitioner has filed the said requisite Rule 6(2) application much before 30-12-2017 is evident from Ext.P5 order dated 06-09-2013 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur, whereby even the said request made by the petitioner under Rule 6(2) has in fact been allowed as early as on 06-09-2013. Now the petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 application dated 15-12-2020 before the 1[st] respondent Tahsildar seeking for fresh assessment/reassessment of the subject property in terms of Sec.6 A of the Kerala Land Tax Act for securing additional entries in the BTR to correctly show the description of the property as garden land or purayidam instead of the earlier BTR entries as nilam or paddy land. 4. It is by now well settled by the series of the ruling of this Court as in _**Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer**_ [2019 (3) KLT 838], _**Renjith.K.Paul v.Revenue Divisional Officer**_ [2019 (2) KLT 262), _**LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath**_ W.P(C). No. 9070 of 2020 5 _**v. Mariumma**_ [2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB)], _**Tahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk and another v. Renjith George**_ [2020 (1) KHC 865 (DB)] that where the subject property has been converted as garden land or purayidam prior to 12-08-2008 (date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act) and where the requisite Rule 6(2) application under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 has been made by the property holder before the statutory revenue officials concerned, before 30-12-2017 (date of coming into force of the amended provisions of 2008 Act, which was introduced Sec.27 A thereof), then the property holder has a right to get his case considered strictly in terms of Rule 6(2) and such a case the property holder cannot be mulcted to pay the amounts conceived as per the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, including Sec.27A thereof, and the amended rules framed thereunder. 5. So also it has been now well settled that in such a case where the property holder has filed the requisite Rule 6 (2) application before 30-12-2017, then after securing such orders under Rule 6 (2) the property holder is equally entitled to maintain an application under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 before the Tahsildar 6 W.P(C). No. 9070 of 2020 concerned for securing fresh assessment/reassessment of the said property so as to secure additional entries in the BTR to correctly show the description of property as garden land or purayidam instead of the earlier BTR entries as nilam or paddy land and this aspect has been so categorically laid down in judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in cases as in _**Mariumma’s case**_ (supra) [2015 (2)KLT 516] and _**Renjith's case**_ (supra) [2020 (1) KHC 865 (DB)]. 6. The position in that regard is declared and ordered in this case as well. Accordingly it is ordered that the 1[st] respondent Tahsildar will immediately take up the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P6 application and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner shall pass orders for fresh assessment/reassessment of the subject property under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act so as to make additional entries in the BTR to correctly show the description of the property as garden land or purayidam, instead of the earlier BTR entries as nilam or paddy land, without much delay preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment and strictly in terms of the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in cases as in _**Mariumma’s case**_ (supra) [2015 (2)KLT 516] and _**Renjith's case**_ (supra) [2020 (1) KHC 865 (DB)] and without W.P(C). No. 9070 of 2020 7 making the petitioner pay the amounts as conceived under the amended provisions of 2008 Act, including Sec.27A thereof and the rules framed thereunder. With these observations and directions the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** KAS W.P(C). No. 9070 of 2020 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.3837/08 OF S.R.O. AYYANTHOLE.** **EXHIBIT P2** **TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.639/08 OF S.R.O. AYYANTHOLE.** **EXHIBIT P3** **TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 26.7.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P4** **TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.12.2019 OF THE AGRICULTURAL, AYYANTHOLE.** **EXHIBIT P4(A)** **TRUE COY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK.** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D1-14936/13 DATED 6.9.2013 OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISSUR.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED ON 15.2.2020 BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE**