Meethiankunju and K.S ABOOBACKER v. Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Muvattupuzha; Tahsildar (LR), Kunnathunadu Taluk; Taluk Surveyor, Kunnathunadu Taluk; Village Officer, Chelamattam Village Office

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **WEDNESDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 26067 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 MEETHIANKUNJU AGED 42 YEARS S/O MUHAMMED V M, VATHIMATTAM HOUSE, ARAKKAPPADY, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683556 2 K.S ABOOBACKER AGED 53 YEARS S/O SULAIMAN, KOOTTAAYI HOUSE, VALLAM KARA, CHELAMATTAM, PERUMABVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683543 BY ADVS. K.R.PRATHISH P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN S.UNNIKRISHNAN (NELLAD) JOEL CHALAMANA KRISHNA DAS ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO) REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686673 2 THE TAHSILDAR (LR) KUNNATHUNADU TALUK OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683543 3 THE TALUK SURVEYOR KUNNATHUNADU TALUK OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683543 2 ## W.P.(C) No.26067/2023 - 4 VILLAGE OFFICER CHELLAMATTAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683562 SR.GP-SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.26067/2023 3 ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 9th August, 2023 The petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by the omission of the 2[nd] respondent-Tahsildar in entertaining a representation submitted by the petitioners for re-assessment of rate of Basic Tax on land and for making necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register. 2. The petitioners are the owners of 16.10 Ares of property in Block No.7, Re-Survey No.96/2 of Chelamattam Village in Kunnathunadu Taluk 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 W.P.(C) No.26067/2023 4 Revenue Divisional Officer passed Ext.P3 order under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 permitting to use the land for non-agricultural purposes. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though Ext.P3 order was passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 in the year 2015, the land of the petitioners is not reassessed 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.P4 application invoking Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 seeking to reassess the Basic Tax and to make necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register. The Tahsildar, however, has not passed any order 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 as Ext.P3 proceedings is of the year 2015, the W.P.(C) No.26067/2023 5 veracity and the genuineness of Ext.P3 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 Land Tax Act, 1961. W.P.(C) No.26067/2023 6 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 Utiliation 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 applications submitted under the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. 8. As the nature of the land of the petitioners has 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 produced by the petitioners. The writ petition is therefore allowed. The 2[nd] respondentTahsildar is directed to consider Ext.P4 application submitted by 7 W.P.(C) No.26067/2023 the petitioners, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of one month. (sd/-) ## **N.NAGARESH, JUDGE** jsr/ W.P.(C) No.26067/2023 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26067/2023** PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 03.05.2023 OF 16.10 ARES OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE YEAR 2023-2024 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS Exhibit P2 THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S BUILDING Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RDO, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 11.03.2015 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 01.08.2023 ALONG WITH FORM A BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT