P.A. Jose and Others v. Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Civil Station, Ayyanthole, Thrissur; Village Officer, Ayyanthole Village, Thrissur District

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.8995 OF 2020(Y)** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 P.A.JOSE, AGED 71 YEARS S/O.ANTONY, PAYAPILLI HOUSE, PUTHANANGADI, THIRUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 003.** **2 ALPHONSA, AGED 62 YEARS W/O.P.A.JOSE, PAYAPILLI HOUSE, PUTHANANGADI, THIRUVATHUKKAL P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 003.** **3 SONA BANU, AGED 40 YEARS W/O.BABU M.PHILIP, THUMBIL AMBUPARAMBIL, PUTHANANGADI, KOTTAYAM P.O., PIN-686 003.** **4 HIMA DANI, AGED 37 YEARS W/O.DANI THOMAS, ALAPATT PALATHINGAL, PERINGAVU P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 018.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003.** **2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, AYYANTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 003.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR, SPL.GP (REVENUE)** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(C). No. 8995 of 2020 2 ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. -----------------------------------W.P(C). No. 8995 of 2020 -----------------------------------Dated this the 20[th] day of March, 2020 ## **JUDGMENT** The case set up in this writ petition (C) is as follows: The petitioners are the absolute owners in possession of a parcel of land in Ayyanthole Village in Thrissur Taluk. The property was included in the data bank prepared in terms of Act 28 of 2008 as a converted land. Hence the petitioner preferred an application under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 which was allowed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Subsequently she preferred an application before the Local Level Monitoring Committee and the said property was excluded from the data bank as evident by Ext.P4 and Ext.P4(a). There was a confusion with respect to the procedure for correction the BTR after the introduction of Sec.27A. However a Division Bench of this Court in _**Tahsildar**_ _**Thodupuzha Taluk and Another v. Renjith George [2020 (1)**_ _**KHC 865]**_ had declared that those persons who obtained permission under Clause 6(2) before the introduction of 27A need not follow the course under the said Act. Hence the petitioners preferred Ext.P6 W.P(C). No. 8995 of 2020 3 application before the 1[st] respondent. This writ petition is being preferred feeling aggrieved by the inordinate delay on the part of the 1[st] respondent in not disposing the application. It is in the light of these averments and contentions, that the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition (C) seeking the following prayers: - (i) _Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, orders or directions, commanding the 1[st] respondent to change the Basic Tax Register in respect of the petitioners properties covered by Exts.P1 and P2 documents by considering Ext.P6 as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court._ - (ii) _Render such other orders or directions as this Honourable Court may deem just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case_ . 2. Heard Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents. 3. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the subject property was converted as garden land or purayidam long prior to 1208-2008, which is the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. Further the petitioners have indeed filed the requisite application under Rule (2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order (KLU Order), 1967 for conversion of the subject property as garden land or purayidam and W.P(C). No. 8995 of 2020 4 for its use for any non-agricultural purposes, much prior to 30-122017, which is the date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the 2008 Act, which was introduced Sec.27 A thereof. Indeed in this case the petitioners have even secured favourable orders on that application as per Ext.P5 order dated 06-09-2013 issued by the 1[st] respondent Revenue Divisional Officer under the said Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order, 1967. That therefore there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the petitioner has indeed filed the said requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order much before 30-12-2017, which is the date of coming into force of the amended provision of the 2008 Act. Further the property has also been duly deleted from the land data bank as can be seen from Ext.P4 and P4(a). 4. Now the petitioners have submitted Ext.P6 application dated 15-03-2020 before the 1[st] respondent Tahsildar seeking for consequential orders or reassessment/fresh assessment of the subject property under Sec.6 A of the Kerala Land Tax Act to secure additional entries in the BTR, which show the correct nature of the property as garden land or purayidam, instead of the earlier BTR entries as nilam or paddy land. 5 W.P(C). No. 8995 of 2020 5. It is by now well settled by the series of the rulings of this Court that in a case that the subject property has been converted prior to 12-08-2008 (date of coming into force of the 2008 Act) and in a case that such a property holder has filed requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 for conversion of the property as aforestated before 30-12-2017 (date of coming into force of the amended provisions of 2008 Act, which was introduced Sec.27 A thereof) and in such a case, the party is entitled to get his plea considered under Rule 6(2) of KLU Order without having to pay the amounts as per Sec.27A of the amended Act. After such a person obtains order under Rule 6(2) of the KLU Order, he is equally entitled to maintain a consequential application under Sec.6 A of the Kerala Land Tax Act before the Tahsildar concerned seeking for fresh assessment/reassessment of the subject property for correctly showing the nature of the property as garden land or purayidam by making such additional entries in the BTR instead of the earlier BTR entries as nilam or paddy land. 6. This aspect of the matter has been well settled by various decision of this Court including that the decisions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in cases as in _**LLMC,**_ 6 W.P(C). No. 8995 of 2020 _**Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath v. Mariumma**_ [2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB)], _**Tahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk and another v. Renjith George**_ [2020 (1) KHC 865 (DB)] etc., that in such case the respondent Tahsildar is obliged to make fresh assessment under Sec.6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act without making the party pay any amounts as conceived in the amended provisions of 2008 Act, introduced Sec.27 A thereof and the amended rules framed thereunder. The position in this regard is categorically declared and ordered in this case as well. 7. Very many cases are coming to the notice of this Court wherein despite of well settled legal position, the revenue officials are acting in blatant violation of the said directives and dictum laid down by this Court and The Revenue officials are illegally demanding that the parties concerned should pay such higher amount in terms of the amended provisions of 2008 Act, whereby such parties are driven to this Court for litigations unnecessarily. 8. Accordingly it is ordered that the 1[st] respondent Tahsildar will immediately take up for consideration the matters raised by the petitioner in Ext.P6 application without much delay and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner will 7 W.P(C). No. 8995 of 2020 pass orders for reassessment/fresh assessment under Sec.6 A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 so as to make additional entries in the BTR to show the nature of the property as garden land or purayidam instead of the earlier BTR entries as nilam or paddy land, without much delay preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment and in the light of the dictum well settled by the Division Bench of this Court in decisions as in _**Mariumma’s case**_ (supra) [2015 (2)KLT 516] and _**Renjith's case**_ (supra) [2020 (1) KHC 865 (DB)] and without making the petitioner pay any amounts as per the amended provisions of the 2008 Act and the amended Rules. With these observations and directions the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** KAS W.P(C). No. 8995 of 2020 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.3141/06 OF SRO, AYYANTHOLE.** **EXHIBIT P2** **TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.6452/06 OF SRO, AYYANTHOLE.** **EXHIBIT P3** **TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 26.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P4** **TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.12.2019 OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, AYYANTHOLE.** - **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DATA BANK.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D1-14936/13 DATED 06.09.2013 OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THRISUSR.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION PREFERRED ON 15.03.2020 BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL** **//TRUE COPY//** **PA TO JUDGE**