K.V. Jose v. State of Kerala and Others (WP(C).No.14748 of 2019)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.14748 OF 2019(P)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **K.V.JOSE, AGED 55 YEARS S/O.K.M VARGHESE, KOLEYAPILLY HOUSE, KOKKAPPILLY P.O., RESIDING AT EROOR P.O., TRIPUNITHURA 682 306.** **BY ADVS. SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE SMT.M.SANTHY** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,**| ||**REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.**| |**2**|**THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,**| ||**OFFICE OF THE RDO, FORT KOCHI 682 001,**| |**3**|**THE TAHSILDAR,**| ||**KANAYANNUR TALUK,**| ||**ERNAKULAM 682 011.**| ||**R1-3 BY GP RON BASTIN**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WPC 14748/19 2 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P5 order issued by the 3[rd] respondent-Tahsildar, under the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, wherein he has been asked to remit the necessary fee under the provisions of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act (herein after referred to as 'the Paddy Land Act' for short), for the purpose of reassessment of his property from a 'paddy land' to a 'dry land'. 2. According to the petitioner, his property had been earlier incorrectly included as a 'paddy land' in the Data Bank prepared by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC for short) under the provisions of the Paddy Land Act and therefore, that he had approached the said Authority and had the same removed through Ext.P2 order. He says that he, thereafter, WPC 14748/19 3 approached the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO for short), under the provisions of the Kerala Utilisation Order (KLU Order for short), and that he obtained Ext.P3 order thereunder, which clearly permitted him to use the property for any purpose other than paddy cultivation. He submits that he, therefore, preferred a consequential application to the 3[rd] respondent under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and alleges that, though the said Authority was enjoined to consider the same and issue favourable orders thereon, he has now issued Ext.P5 order asking the petitioner to remit the necessary fee under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act. He, therefore, prays that Ext.P5 be set aside and the 3[rd] respondentTahsildar be directed to reconsider his application in terms of law. 3. The learned Government Pleader, Sri.Ron Bastin, submits that a counter WPC 14748/19 4 affidavit has been placed on record on behalf of the 2[nd] respondent-RDO, wherein it has been clearly stated that Ext.P3 order contains certain specific conditions, including that necessary fee under the provisions of Section 27A(3) must be paid. He says that this was because the application under the KLU Order was filed by the petitioner only on 11.09.2018 and that after the Paddy Land Act has been amended, bringing into its fold Section 27A and its attendant provisions, the petitioner is obligated to pay the necessary fee. He, therefore, prays that this Writ Petition be dismissed. 4. Even when I hear the learned Government Pleader on the afore lines, it has been now well settled by this Court, through a catena of judgments, that once the owner of a land obtains permission under the KLU Order, he is entitled to use the property for any purpose WPC 14748/19 5 other than paddy cultivation. When such an order is obtained under the provisions of the KLU Order, obviously, the provisions of Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act would not apply, since they operate under two different and completely independent Statutes. Obviously, therefore, even if a condition is put in the order obtained by the petitioner under the KLU Order-that he must pay fee under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act-it becomes untenable, since the action of the District Collector/RDO under the KLU Order is totally different from the action enjoined on the RDO under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act. Therefore, it is immaterial whether the application under the KLU Order was preferred prior to the coming into force of Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act or otherwise, once orders thereon are issued. 5. This is pertinent because, the RDO could have always rejected the application made WPC 14748/19 6 by the petitioner under the KLU Order after 30.12.2017, going by the ratio in **Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha & Another [2019(4) KHC 400],** on the ground that he should have moved an application under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act. However, in this case, the RDO has issued Ext.P3 under the KLU Order and therefore, it will be impermissible for the said Authority to then insist that the petitioner must pay the amounts under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act, which is a distinct and separate Statute, operating completely in a different statutory scenario. 6. That said, it is also well-settled by this Court that when an owner of a land obtains an order under the KLU Order, he gets the concomitant right to approach the competent Tahsildar under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, for reassessment of the same; and that the said Authority is obligated to WPC 14748/19 7 consider the same and pass orders, after ensuring that the petitioner satisfies all other necessary and imperative conditions. In the afore circumstances and for the reasons above, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P5; and consequentially, direct the 3[rd] respondent-Tahsildar to reconsider the application of the petitioner, without insisting on payment of the fee under Section 27A of the Paddy Land Act and _de hors_ the condition in Ext.P3 order, thus leading to appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, on condition that the petitioner complies with all other necessary and imperative statutory requirements. ## **Sd/-** RR ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** WPC 14748/19 8 ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER KERALA LAND UTILISATION ORDER DATED 11.9.2018. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED 27.9.2018 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, TRIPUNITHURA. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER NO. K2-2813/2018 DATED 1.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALLOWING EXHIBIT P1 APPLICATION. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 5.12.2018 SEEKING CORRECTION OF THE NATURE OF LAN AS PURAYIDON IN COMPLICATE WITH EXHIBIT P3 ORDER. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT REJECTING EXHIBIT P4 APPLICATION.