High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-01-18Writ petition allowed.

K.A. Sebastian, K.C. Raju and Dr. Jaimes Sebastian v. The District Collector, Ernakulam, Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi, and Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 404 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2023-01-18
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed. The 3rd respondent (Tahsildar) is directed to consider the Form-A application submitted by the petitioners, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon within one month, after verifying the genuineness of Exts. P4 and P4(a).
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.A. Sebastian
K.C. Raju
Dr. Jaimes Sebastian

Respondents

The District Collector, Ernakulam
Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi
Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Animon A. John
• Adv. Shan V. Shine

Counsels for Respondents

• Smt. Deepa Narayanan, Senior Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, owners of 74.06 acres in Kakkanad, Ernakulam, challenge the omission of the 3rd respondent Tahsildar in entertaining their application for reassessment of the Basic Tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. They had secured non-agricultural use permissions under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (Exts. P4 and P4(a) in 2022) permitting conversion of land, but their land tax records still reflect Nilam/Paddy land statuses. They filed Form-A (P5) seeking re-assessment under Section 6A of the LTA, 1961, which the Tahsildar did not decide. The respondents opposed contending the need to verify Exts. P4/P4(a) and the current land status before any reassessment. The Court, referencing Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala (2020) and District Collector v. Fr. Jose Uppani (2020), held that once an enabling order under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 is granted, prior entries in the Basic Tax Register become surplus and a fresh assessment under Section 6A is obligatory upon competent revenue authorities, subject to verification of authenticity. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the 3rd respondent is directed to consider Form-A and pass appropriate orders within one month, after due verification of the enabling orders."

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 - Clause 6Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 - Rule 6(2)Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 - Section 6(3)Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 - Section 6AKerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 27A

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Enabling order under Rule 6(2) KLUO 1967 triggers reassessment under Section 6A LTA 1961; prior entries in Basic Tax Register (Nilam/Paddy Land) become superfluous and must be superseded.
Revenue officials are obliged under law to make a fresh assessment after an enabling order is in place.
Change in land use pursuant to statutory order necessitates verification and re-assessment by competent authorities.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that Exts. P4 and P4(a) under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, and the subsequent Form-A (P5) require re-assessment of Basic Tax under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. They relied on Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala (2020) and District Collector, Ernakulam v. Fr. Jose Uppani (2020) to claim that competent authorities must re-assess the land tax after enabling orders, updating the Basic Tax Register accordingly.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that Exts. P4/P4(a) are 2022 orders whose genuineness must be verified and the land’s current status ascertained before any reassessment; the Tahsildar has not decided Form-A, and verification of the status and orders is necessary before issuing any reassessment.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala and others	2020 (4) KLT 448	Positive	Cited to establish that once an enabling order under Rule 6(2) KLUO, 1967 is issued, earlier BTR entries (Nilam/Paddy Land) become superfluous and a fresh assessment under Section 6A LTA, 1961 is required.
District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others	2020 (4) KLT 612	Positive	Division Bench held that if orders under KLUO pre-date certain cut-off, the subsequent application under the LTA, 1961 must be considered.
Decision reported in 2015 (3) KHC Page 19	2015 (3) KHC Page 19	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P8 cites a prior Kerala High Court decision, referenced for background without detailed application in the present reasoning.

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 K.A. Sebastian, K.C. Raju and Dr. Jaimes Sebastian v. The District Collector, Ernakulam, Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi, and Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk 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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 28TH POUSHA, 1944** **WP(C) NO. 404 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 K.A.SEBASTIAN AGED 57 YEARS,S/O ESTHAPPANOSE, KALLUNGAL, CHERUMATTAPUZHAKKARAYIL, VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KOCHI – 682021.** **2 K.C. RAJU AGED 57 YEARS,S/O CYRIL, KALIYATHU VEETTIL, NJALAKAM KARAYIL, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM – 682024.** **3 DR. JAIMES SEBASTAIN AGED 60 YEARS,S/O DEVASSY, PAYIKKAT, PARIJATHAM ROAD, NJALAKAM KKARAYIL, KANAYANNUR TALUK, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., ERNAKULAM – 682024.** **BY ADVS. ANIMON A. JOHN SHAN V. SHINE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD P.O. ERNAKULAM., PIN – 682030.** - **2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM – 682001.** 2 ## **WP(C) No. 404 of 2023** **3 TAHSILDAR KANAYANNUR TALUK, NEAR SUBHASH PARK, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI – 682011.** **SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN SR.GP.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 ## **WP(C) No. 404 of 2023** ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 18[th] day of January, 2023 The petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by the omission of the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar in entertaining an application submitted by the petitioners for re-assessment of rate of Basic Tax of land and for making necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register. 2. The petitioners are owners of 74.06 Ares of property in Re-Survey Block No.9 and in Re-Survey Nos.699/6, 699/7, 699/8 and 700/3 of Kakkanad Village in Ernakulam District. The petitioners approached the Revenue Divisional Officer invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 seeking to permit to use the land for non-agricultural purposes. The Revenue Divisional Officer passed Exts.P4 and P4(a) orders under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 permitting to use the land for non-agricultural purposes. 4 ## **WP(C) No. 404 of 2023** 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though Exts.P4 and P4(a) orders were passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 in the year 2022, the land of the petitioners is not re-assessed for fixing rate of Basic Tax and the property of the petitioners is still described as paddy land in the Revenue records. The petitioners submitted Ext.P5 application invoking Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 seeking to re-assess the Basic Tax and to make necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register. The Tahsildar, however, has not passed any orders on the application. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court. 4. The Senior Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The Senior Government Pleader controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition. It is submitted that Exts.P4 and P4(a) proceedings are of the year 2022. The veracity and the genuineness of Exts.P4 and P4(a) 5 **WP(C) No. 404 of 2023** proceedings under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 are liable to be verified. The present status of the land will also have to be ascertained, before re-assessment of Basic Tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents. 6. This Court has considered the issue of reassessment of land tax on the basis of the orders obtained under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 in the judgment in _**Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala and others**_ [2020 (4) KLT 448]. This Court held that once enabling order is passed under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 permitting conversion of the land, then the earlier entries in the BTR showing the land as Nilam, Paddy Land, etc. will become superfluous and redundant and the competent Revenue officials like the Tahsildar are obliged under law to make a fresh assessment of the property under Section 6A of the Kerala 6 ## **WP(C) No. 404 of 2023** Land Tax Act, 1961. 7. A Division Bench of this Court also considered the issue in _**District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others** [2020 (4) KLT 612_ ] and the Division Bench held that when an applicant has secured orders under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order prior to the cut-off date on which Section 27A was introduced to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the competent Revenue officials are bound to consider the subsequent application submitted under the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. 8. As the nature of the land of the petitioners have been permitted to be changed pursuant to passing of a statutory order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, the competent authority is bound to re-assess the rate of Basic Tax in respect of the land and to make necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register, if necessary, after verifying the veracity/genuineness of the permission obtained under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 7 **WP(C) No. 404 of 2023** produced by the petitioners. The writ petition is therefore allowed. The 3[rd] respondent is directed to consider the Form-A application submitted by the petitioners, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of one month. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH JUDGE** ams 8 ## **WP(C) No. 404 of 2023** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 404/2023** **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 595/2016 DATED 7.1.2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 4446/2017 DATED 6.11.2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 10202/2020 DATED 25/05/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K2-4/2021 DATED 25/05/2022 ISSUED BY REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI Exhibit P4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. RDOCHN/4/2021-K2 DATED 30/06/2022 ISSUED BY REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION NO. H3/12783/22 DATED 04/07/2022 FILED BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT . Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. H3/12783/22 DATED 01/08/2022 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO. H3/14865/22 DATED 10/08/2022 ISSUED BY THE TALUK OFFICE KANAYANNUR TO THE PETITIONERS. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2015 (3) KHC PAGE 19.**