High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2021-08-09Writ petitions allowed; Ext.P3 set aside; direc...

M.I. Abu v. State of Kerala & Others (WP(C) Nos. 11873/2021 & 11909/2021)

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos.11873 of 2021; 11909 of 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2021-08-09
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petitions allowed. Ext.P3 in both WP(C) Nos.11873/2021 and 11909/2021 is set aside. The 3rd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2 applications and pass fresh orders within one month, in light of LLMC Kizhakkambalam v. Mariumma, Shanmugham v. District Collector, Iype Varghese v. RDO and Ext.P4 (W.P.(C) No.25101/2020).
Final Disposition: Writ petitions allowed; Ext.P3 set aside; direct to consider Ext.P2 and pass fresh orders within one month

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

M.I. Abu
Safiya Abu (WP(C) 11909/2021)

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government Secretariat Annex, Trivandrum
The District Collector Ernakulam, Civil Station, Kakkanadu, Cochin
The Tahsildar (LR), Taluk Office, Kothamangalam, Ernakulam District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Pee yus A.Kottam
• Hrithwik D. Namboothiri
• Arjun S Benedict

Counsels for Respondents

• GP SRI.B.S. SYAMANTHAK

Case Synopsis & Summary

These writ petitions concern landowners who sought correction or addition in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) following a statutory permission obtained under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order to convert paddy land for non-paddy use (garden land). The Tahsildar rejected the request, directing the petitioners to invoke the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The Court relied on precedents including W.P.(C) No. 25101/2020 (Ext.P4) and the decision in Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer to hold that where statutory permission for change of user has been obtained, the competent authority must re-assess land for higher tax and issue orders to reflect the change in the BTR. However, it also notes that the land’s nature cannot be corrected in the BTR; at most, a条件ary endorsement may be made. Citing LLMC Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma, Shanmugham v. District Collector and Iype Varghese v. RDO, the Court concludes Ext.P3 cannot stand. The Tahsildar v. Renjith George reference is considered not fully applicable since the extensions pre-date the 2017 amendment. Consequently, the petitions are allowed: Ext.P3 is set aside and the 3rd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2 applications and pass fresh orders within a month, consistent with the cited authorities.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Utilisation OrderKerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Section 27A

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners challenged Ext.P3 directing them to pursue relief under the Paddy Land Act and contended that once a statutory permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order was obtained to change use, a fresh assessment for higher land tax and appropriate BTR entries must follow. They urged that Ext.P3 cannot stand in light of the decisions in W.P.(C) 25101/2020 and Iype Varghese v. RDO.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the nature of land cannot be corrected in the BTR and at best a conditional endorsement may be made; reliance was placed on established judgments including LLMC Kizhakkambalam, Shanmugham and the Tahsildar v. Renjith George line of authorities, as well as the Kerala Paddy Land/Wetland Act regime.

Cited Precedents (6)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
W.P.(C) No.25101/2020	Ext.P4; 26.11.2020	Positive	Ext.P4 (Jose Mathew v. State of Kerala) is cited as establishing that the competent authority must reassess land for higher tax and reflect changes in the BTR after statutory permission for change of land use.
Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2020 (5) KLT 403	Positive	Held that statutory permission for change of user to garden land under Kerala Land Utilisation Order requires fresh assessment for higher land tax and entries in the BTR.
LLMC Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma and another	2015 (3) KHC 19 (DB)	Positive	Cited as supporting that certain approaches to land classification and tax entries are applicable in these contexts.
Shanmugham v. District Collector	2019 (2) KLT 45	Positive	Cited in the context of the corrective scope of BTR entries and related principles.
Tahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk and another v. Renjith George	2020 (2) KLT 13	Mentioned Only	Division Bench decision on change of nature of unnotified land after the starting date of Section 27A; noted as not necessarily relevant to the present pre-2017 amendment facts.
Iype Varghese v. RDO	(see above)	Positive	Same proposition as Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer cited above; reinforces re-assessment and BTR entries.

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 M.I. Abu v. State of Kerala & Others (WP(C) Nos. 11873/2021 & 11909/2021) 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** **MONDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1943** **WP(C) NO. 11873 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **M.I.ABU AGED 56 YEARS S/O. IBRAHIM, MEKKAPPADIKKAL (H), MULAVOOR P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM.** **BY ADVS. PEEYUS A.KOTTAM HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI ARJUN S BENEDICT** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT ANNEX, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.** - **2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, COCHIN-682 030** - **3 THE THAHSILDAR (LR), TALUK OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 691** ## **GP SRI.B.S. SYAMANTHAK** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.08.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).11909/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) Nos.11873 & 11909 of 2021 : 2 : ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH** **MONDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 11909 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 M.I.ABU AGED 56 YEARS S/O. IBRAHIM, MEKKAPPADIKKAL (H), MULAVOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN - 686673.** - **2 SAFIYA ABU W/O. M. I. ABU, MEKKAPPADIKKAL (H), MULAVOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN - 686673. BY ADVS. PEEYUS A.KOTTAM HRITHWIK D. NAMBOOTHIRI ARJUN S BENEDICT** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT ANNEX, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.** - **2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, COCHIN - 682 030.** - **3 THE THAHSILDAR (LR) TALUK OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM P. O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686666.** ## **G.P. SRI B.S.SYAMANTHAK** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.08.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).11873/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) Nos.11873 & 11909 of 2021 : 3 : **J U D G M E N T** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _**Dated this the 9[th] day of August, 2021**_ [WP(C) Nos.11873 & 11909 of 2021] In both these cases, the petitioner who holds pieces of land, applied to the respondents seeking correction/addition in the Basic Tax Register so as to change the description of the property held by him. The petitioner has, in fact, obtained Ext.P1 orders under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, whereby the petitioner has been permitted to use the property for other purposes. It is on the strength of that order that the petitioner has sought correction/addition in the BTR and other Revenue records. 2. However, the Tahsildar rejected the request of the petitioner as per Ext.P3 directing the petitioner to invoke the competent authority under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. It is aggrieved by Ext.P3 orders WP(C) Nos.11873 & 11909 of 2021 : 4 : that the petitioner has filed these writ petitions. 3. The issue involved in these writ petitions is settled as per the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.25101/2020, which is marked as Ext.P4 in the writ petitions. Following the judgment in _**Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer** [2020 (5) KLT 403],_ this Court held that where statutory permission for change of user of land has been obtained for conversion of a paddy land to a garden land in terms of the provisions contained in Kerala Land Utilisation Order, then it is the obligation of the competent authority to make a fresh assessment of the land so as to collect the higher land tax for such converted land and to issue appropriate directions to the officers concerned to make additional entries in the Basic Tax Register so as to reflect the nature of the land as garden land/purayidam in the said Register. 4. The learned Government Pleader further pointed out that as per the judgments of this Court and of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the nature of the land cannot be corrected in the BTR and at the most, only a condition can be endorsed in WP(C) Nos.11873 & 11909 of 2021 : 5 : such BTR. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 6. In view of the judgment of this Court in _**LLMC Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma and another** [2015 (3) KHC 19 (DB)],_ _**Shanmugham v. District Collector** [2019 (2) KLT 45]_ , _**Iype Varghese v. RDO** [2020 (5) KLT 403]_ and Ext.P4 judgment in W.P.(C) No.25101/2020, the orders impugned by the petitioner at Ext.P3 cannot be sustained. 7. The learned Government Pleader relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in _**Tahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk and another v. Renjith George** [2020 (2) KLT 13]_ , wherein the Division Bench has held that any application received for change of nature of unnotified land after the date of commencement of Section 27A shall be considered and disposed of only in accordance with the provisions of Section 27A. The said judgment may not be of any relevance to the present case since the petitioner has WP(C) Nos.11873 & 11909 of 2021 : 6 : applied and obtained orders under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order prior to the amendment on 30.12.2017. In such circumstances, the writ petitions are allowed. Ext.P3 in both the writ petitions are set aside and the 3[rd] respondent is directed to consider Ext.P2 applications submitted by the petitioner and pass fresh orders thereon within a period of one month, in the light of the judgments in _**LLMC Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat v. Mariumma and another** [2015 (3) KHC 19 (DB)],_ _**Shanmugham v. District Collector** [2019 (2) KLT 45]_ , _**Iype Varghese v. RDO** [2020 (5) KLT 403]_ and Ext.P4 judgment in W.P.(C) No.25101/2020. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** aks/10.08.2021 WP(C) Nos.11873 & 11909 of 2021 : 7 : ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11873/2021** |**PETITIONER**|**EXHIBITS**| |---|---| |**Exhibit P1**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER REVENUE**| ||**DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA**| ||**BEARING NO. KDS 6349/2015-A9 DATED**| ||**08.10.2015.**| |**Exhibit P2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED**| ||**18.02.2021 SUBMITTED PETITIONER 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT ALONG WITH APPLICATION IN**| ||**FORM A OF KERALA LAND TAX ACT.**| |**Exhibit P3**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER**| ||**PASSED BY THE TAHSILDAR (LR)**| ||**KOTHAMANGALAM BEARING NO. A3-9962/20**| ||**DATED 25.02.2021.**| |**Exhibit P4**|**THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF**| ||**HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.**| ||**25101/2020 DATED 26.11.2020 (JOSE**| ||**MATHEW VS. STATE OF KERALA)**| WP(C) Nos.11873 & 11909 of 2021 : 8 : # **APPENDIX OF WPC.11909/2021** P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF RDO DT 11.11.2015 BEARING NO.A97338/2015 KDS P2 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT 24.3.2021 SUBMITTED ALOG WITH APPLICATION IN FORM A OF KERALA LAND TAX ACT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED Y TAHSILDAR(LR) KOTHAMANGALAM DT 15.4.2021 P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC.25101/2020 DT 26.11.2020.