High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2020-10-13Writ petition allowed; directive to reassess an...

Nimmy Francis v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.21380 OF 2020(V)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P.B. Suresh Kumar
Judgment Date: 2020-10-13
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed. The sixth respondent is directed to reassess the land covered by Ext.P8 order, treating it as Purayidam/dry land, and to issue orders changing its classification in the Basic Tax Register and other revenue records accordingly, without requiring compliance with the provisions of the Act. The reassessment and corrections must be completed within two weeks from the production of a copy of this judgment.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; directive to reassess and reclassify the land as Purayidam/dry land; corrections to revenue records to be made within two weeks of judgment copy.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Nimmy Francis

Respondents

The State of Kerala represented by its Secretary to the Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
The District Collector, Collectorate, Ernakulam
The Local Level Monitoring Committee of Kunukara Grama Panchayath, represented by its Convener, Agricultural Officer, Kunukumara
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Fort Kochi
The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, North Paravur
The Tahsildar (Land Records), Taluk Office, North Paravur
The Village Officer, Village Office, Puthenvelikkara

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• George Sebastian

Case Synopsis & Summary

Nimmy Francis, the petitioner, holds land measuring 84.17 ares in Puthenvelikkara Village. Although revenue records show the land as paddy land, it was not included in the data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 because the land was non-cultivable/dry at the time the Act came into force. On 04.07.2015 the petitioner filed Ext.P3 under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 seeking permission to use the land for non-paddy purposes. On 09.09.2020, the competent authority issued Ext.P8, allowing the permission sought. Based on Ext.P8, the petitioner applied for reassessment of the land as dry land under the Kerala Land Tax Act and for corrections in revenue records. The sixth respondent contends that post-Act 29 of 2018, Section 27A of the Act would require permission under the Act for any change of user. The petitioner contends that because permission was obtained before Act 29 of 2018, those provisions cannot be pressed. The court cites Renji K. Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2019 (2) KLT 262) and Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2020 (5) KLT 403) to hold that Act 29 of 2018 cannot override preexisting permissions and that the Land Tax Act requires reassessment reflecting the land as Purayidam/dry land. The writ petition is allowed and the sixth respondent is directed to reassess the land in accordance with Ext.P8, and to reflect the classification in the Basic Tax Register and revenue records within two weeks of this judgment.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (Clause 6(2))Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (as amended by Act 29 of 2018)Kerala Land Tax ActAct 29 of 2018 (amendment to the Act)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner contends that since permission under Clause 6(2) of the Land Utilization Order was obtained prior to the coming into force of Act 29/2018, the provisions of Section 27A of the Act cannot be pressed against her for reassessment or change-of-use. She seeks a direction to treat the land as Purayidam/dry land and to reassess under the Kerala Land Tax Act accordingly, with corrections to revenue records.

Contentions of Respondents

Government Pleader submits that after Act 29 of 2018, Section 27A requires permission under the Act for change of user; further, reassessment and entry corrections should be made in line with the Land Utilization Order and Land Tax Act, subject to the statutory framework of Act 29/2018.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Renji K. Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2019 (2) KLT 262	Positive	Cited to hold that Act 29 of 2018 cannot be pressed against land where permission under the Land Utilization Order was obtained before 2018.
Iype Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer	2020 (5) KLT 403	Positive	Cited to support that where statutory permission under the Land Utilization Order exists, reassessment under the Land Tax Act is appropriate, and that the 2018 amendments should not defeat preexisting permissions.
WPC 30744/2015	WPC No.30744/2015	Mentioned Only	Exhibit P4 references this judgment; it is cited as part of the petitioner’s exhibits rather than as a reasoning authority in the judgment.

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 Nimmy Francis v. State of Kerala and Others 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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR** **TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 21ST ASWINA, 1942** ## **WP(C).No.21380 OF 2020(V)** ## **PETITIONER:** **NIMMY FRANCIS AGED 44 YEARS** **W/O.FRANCIS, THARAYIL HOUSE, NORTH KUTHIYATHODU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.** **BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.** - **2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030.** - **3 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE OF KUNNUKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KUNNUKARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 578.** - **4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, PIN-682 001.** - **5 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513.** **6 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), TALUK OFFICE, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 513.** **2** ## **WP(C).No.21380 OF 2020(V)** |**7**|**THE VILLAGE OFFICER,**| |---|---| ||**VILLAGE OFFICE, PUTHENVELIKKARA,**| ||**ERNAKULAM,**| ||**PIN-683 594.**| ||**SRI. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL – GOVERNMENT**| ||**PLEADER**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).No.21380 OF 2020(V)** **3** ## **W.P. (C) No.21380 of 2020** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner holds an item of land measuring 84.17 Ares in Puthenvelikkara Village. Though the land of the petitioner is shown in the revenue records as paddy land, the same is not included in the data bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act) as it was lying as a dry land when the Act came into force. Since the land was not cultivable with paddy, on 04.07.2015, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 application under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 for permission to make use the land for other purposes. On 09.09.2020, in terms of Ext.P8 order, Ext.P3 application was allowed by the competent authority under the Land Utilization Order, and the petitioner was granted the permission sought for by her. On the basis of Ext.P8 order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P10 application before **WP(C).No.21380 OF 2020(V)** **4** the sixth respondent for reassessing the land as a dry land under the Kerala Land Tax Act and also for making appropriate corrections in the revenue records pertaining to the classification of the land. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the sixth respondent is taking the stand that the petitioner will have to obtain permission for use of the land for other purposes under Section 27A of the Act before seeking orders for reassessment of the land under the Kerala Land Tax Act. According to the petitioner, insofar as she has obtained permission under Clause 6(2) of the Land Utilization Order prior to Act 29 of 2018, in terms of which Section 27A was introduced to the Act, the provisions therein cannot be pressed into service in the matter of considering the application submitted by her for reassessment of the land covered by Ext.P8 order. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader. **WP(C).No.21380 OF 2020(V)** **5** 3. In **Renji K. Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer,** 2019 (2) KLT 262, this court held that if the holder of a land which is not included in the data bank prepared under the Act prefers an application for permission to make use of the land for other purposes under the Land Utilization Order before the coming into the force of Act 29 of 2018, the provisions therein cannot be pressed into service in respect of such a land. In the case on hand, as noted, the petitioner preferred application for permission under the Land Utilization Order on 04.07.2015, and Act 29 of 2018 came into force only with effect from 30.12.2017. In other words, the provisions of Act 29 of 2018 cannot be pressed into service in respect of the land of the petitioner. Further, 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 **WP(C).No.21380 OF 2020(V)** **6** under the Land Tax Act 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. In the light of the decisions aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the sixth respondent is directed to reassess the land of the petitioner covered by Ext.P8 order, treating the same as Purayidam/dry land, and issue appropriate orders directing the officers concerned to change of classification of the land in the Basic Tax Register and other revenue records as Purayidam/dry land, without insisting compliance of the provisions of the Act. This shall be done within two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. **Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** PV **7** ## **WP(C).No.21380 OF 2020(V)** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FROM PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE DATED 25.04.2017.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE DATA BANK.** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 04.07.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.10.2015 IN WPC NO.30744/2015.** - **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2017 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2018 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.11.2019 IN WPC NO.35505/2018.** - **EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.09.2020.** - **EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16.09.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 01.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** **8** ## **WP(C).No.21380 OF 2020(V)** **EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 01.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL**