Lizie Rani (Petitioner) v. The District Collector, Civil Station, Ayyanthol(e), Thrissur; The Revenue Divisional Officer, Civil Station, Ayyanthol(e), Thrissur; The Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda, Thrissur District; The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Chalakudy, Thrissur; The Village Officer, Village Office, Potta Village, Thrissur District; The Local Level Monitoring Committee Chalakudy Municipality, represented by its Convener, The Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Chalakudy, Thrissur District; The Chalakudy Municipality represented by its Secretary, Chalakudy, Thrissur District

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2020 / 3RD BHADRA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.16484 OF 2020(I)** ## **PETITIONER:** **LIZIE RANI AGED 64 YEARS W/O. JOSE, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, THAZHEKKAD P. O., THRISSUR - 680 697.** **BY ADVS. SHRI.ESM.KABEER SMT.K.M.AMINABEEVI SMT.C.SHEEBA** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680 001.** - **2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR - 680 001.** - **3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 121.** - **4 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR - 680 307.** - **5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, POTTA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 722.** - **6 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, (THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 307** - **7 THE CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 307** **R7 BY SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR,SC,CHALAKUDY MUNICI R7 BY ADV. SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR R7 BY ADV. SHRI.ASIF N SR GP SRI SAIGI JACOB PALATTY** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.08.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(C) No.16484 of 2020 2 # **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ## **=============================** ## **W.P(C) No.16484 of 2020** **=============================** Dated this the 25[th] day of August, 2020 ## **JUDGMENT** The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows : - “i. To call for records relating to Exhibit P1 to P9 and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3[rd] respondent to pass orders on Exhibit P3 application dated 31-08-2017 submitted under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. - ii. To issue a writ, order or direction directing the 4[th] respondent to change the classification of the property in the Basic Tax Register on conversion of the property and to accept land tax from the petitioner. - iii. Any other reliefs also may be granted in order to meet out justice considering the circumstances of the case.” 2. Heard Sri.E.S.M.Kabeer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Sri.M.P.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 7[th] respondent (Chalakkudy Municipality). 3. The case of the petitioner is that the subject property thought continues to be described ‘as Nilam/Paddy Land’ in the Basic Tax Register (BTR), has been converted as ‘garden land or purayidom’, long prior to 12.08.2008 (the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land & Wetland Act, 2008). Further that, the petitioner has already filed Ext.P-3 application dated 31.08.2017 initially before the W.P(C) No.16484 of 2020 3 2[nd] respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Thrissur under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order. That since no action was forthcoming thereon, this Court had rendered Ext.P-4 judgment. Since the subject property is covered by Ext.P-3 application is in respect of two title deeds, the petitioner has filed W.P(C)No.30560/2017 as well as W.P(C)No.30853/2017, which this Court has disposed as per Ext.P-4 judgment dated 25.09.2017 & Ext.P-5 judgment dated 26.09.2017 respectively directing the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) to ascertain, as to whether the property has been included in the land data bank and that the petitioner may get certificate from the LLMC that the property has not been included in the data bank, etc. and thereafter, the respondent-RDO was directed to consider and pass orders on the abovesaid application filed under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order, in terms of that provision. A copy of Ext.P-3 application dated 31.08.2017 has been marked as Ext.P-4 in both Ext.P-4 & Ext.P-5 writ proceedings. Later, the jurisdiction to deal with Ext.P-3 application has been transferred to the 3[rd] respondent-RDO, Irinjalakuda and the file in that regard has also been transferred to the 3[rd] respondent-RDO. The petitioner would assert that he has already produced Exts.P-6 & P-7 certificates issued by the Convener of the LLMC and the LLMC respectively stating that the property has been converted as garden land/purayidom, long prior to the coming into force of W.P(C) No.16484 of 2020 4 the 2008 Act. The complaint of the petitioner is that the 3[rd] respondentRDO, Irinjalakuda is not taking final decision on Ext.P-3 application dated 31.08.2017, etc. 4. Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader would submit on the basis of instructions of the 3[rd] respondent that the abovesaid allegation made by the petitioner is not factually correct and that the 3[rd] respondent-RDO, Irinjalakuda had taken up for consideration Ext.P-3 application on quite a few occasions and on all the posting dates, the petitioner and his representative were absent and with the result of that, the matter has been adjourned unnecessarily. 5. After hearing both sides, it is seen that there is no dispute that the petitioner has in fact filed Ext.P-3 application under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order on 31.08.2017, which is before the cut-off date of 30.12.2017 (date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, which has introduced Sec.27A thereof). 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 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 W.P(C) No.16484 of 2020 5 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 cannot 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. 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 W.P(C) No.16484 of 2020 6 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 nature of the land as garden land or purayidam instead of the earlier BTR entries as paddy land or Nilam. 8. It has also been held by this Court in decisions as in _**Sealand Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Revenue Divisional Officer**_ [2020 (5) KLT 56] in the judgment dated 27.07.2020 in W.P(C) No.14531/2020 and paragraph Nos.11 & 13 of the said judgment reads as follows : “11. It has also to borne in mind the legislature has specifically mandated Sub Sec (13) of Sec.27A that it is only those application received for change of nature of unnotified land from the date of commencement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018 (viz, 30-12-2017) that shall be considered and disposed of only in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Therefore in other words application for change of user of the land received by the notified Collector before 30-12-2017 has to be considered only in terms of Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order and not in terms of Sec.27A and the rules framed thereunder. |XXX|XXX|XXX| |---|---|---| |XXX|XXX|XXX| 13. Since it is specifically mandated in Sec.27A(13) by the legislature that it is only those applications received for change of nature of the unnotified land from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act (viz, 30-12-2017) that has to be considered and decided in terms of the said Act, and in view of the abovesaid well settled legal positions mentioned herein above, it has only to be held that Rule 12(17) is ultra vires the provisions contained in Sec.27A(13) and is unenforceable. It is all the more so, as this Court has repeatedly held in various decisions that in a case that the party has filed requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order before 30-12-2017 and the same has to be considered in terms of Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order and not in terms of Sec.27A of the Act and without compelling the party to pay the amounts as conceived as per the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, including Sec.27A thereof and the rules framed thereunder including Rule 12(17) thereof. The position in that regard is declared and ordered in this case as well.” W.P(C) No.16484 of 2020 7 The position in that regard is ordered and declared in this case as well. Hence, it has to be borne in mind by the respondents that Rule 12(17) of the amended Rules has no application in a case, where the party has filed the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order before the cut-off date of 30.12.2017 and Rule 12(17) is ultra vires the provisions contained in Sec.27A(13) thereof, in view of the aspects mentioned in the above judgment in W.P(C) No.14531/2020. 9. Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the 3[rd] respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer, Irinjalakuda will take up for consideration the matters in relation to Ext.P-3 application dated 31.08.2017, without much delay and may ensure that an effective inspection of the subject property is done by the 5[th] respondent-Village Officer with prior notice to the petitioner to ascertain the ground realities of the subject property as on 12.08.2008 and as to whether the subject property was cultivable and useful for cultivation as on 12.08.2008 and consequently as to whether the subject property would fulfil the definition of the paddy land under Sec.2(xii) of the 2008 Act as on 12.08.2008 and copy of the inspection report should be given to the petitioner in advance and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner through authorized representative/counsel, if any and after taking due note of the aspects borne out from Exts.P-6 & P-7 W.P(C) No.16484 of 2020 8 as well as the contents of the inspection report, as aforesaid, etc., should pass orders on Ext.P-3 application dated 31.08.2017, strictly in accordance with Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order, without much delay, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. While doing so, the 3[rd] respondent shall bear in mind that the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay any amounts as conceived as per the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, which has introduced Sec.27A thereof and the amended Rules framed thereunder, including Rule 12 (17) thereof. 10. After the petitioner secures the permission under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order on Ext.P-3 application, she will be equally entitled to maintain the requisite application before the 4[th] respondent-Tahsildar, for fresh assessment of the subject property, in terms of Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act for alteration in the Basic Tax Register (BTR). 11. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Memorandum of this W.P(C) with all the exhibits before respondent Nos.2 to 5, for necessary information. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. **Sd/-** **ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** vgd W.P(C) No.16484 of 2020 9 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 03.08.2017. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DATA BANK. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 31.08.2017 UNDER CLAUSE 6(2) SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.30560/2017 DATED 25.09.2017. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.30853/2017 DATED 26.09.2017. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 28.11.2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 22.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.07.2020 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 21.11.2017.**