Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi, Ernakulam v. Jose Varghese and Jagan Varghese

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 30TH MAGHA, 1941 ## WA.No.293 OF 2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.11.2019 IN WP(C) 30372/2019(V) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ## APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C): 1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682 001. 2 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682 011. BY SRI. TEK CHAND, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER ## RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN W.P.(C): - 1 JOSE VARGHESE S/O. VARGHESE, MUKKADACKAL HOUSE, CHITHRAPPUZHA, IRUMPANAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM-682 039. - 2 JAGAN VARGHESE, S/O. VARGHESE, MUKKADACKAL HOUSE, CHITHRAPPUZHA, IRUMPANAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM-682 039. ## SRI.T.P.PRADEEP THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A. No. 293/2020 : 2 : ## **Dated this the 19[th] day of February, 2020. JUDGMENT** ## **SHAJI P. CHALY, J** This writ appeal is filed by the respondents in the writ petition challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 12.11.2019 in W.P.(C) No. 30372 of 2019, whereby Ext.P3 order passed by the Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam was set aside with a consequential direction to re-consider the writ petitioners' application strictly in obedience with the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment in W.P.(C) No. 41524 of 2018 dated 27.06.2019. 2. The subject issue relates to the application submitted by the writ petitioners under clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (hereinafter called 'Order, 1967). Writ petitioners are siblings and owners of 29.88 Ares and 10.12. Ares of property comprised in resurvey Nos. 206/9 and 206/9-2 of Thiruvankulam Village. An application dated 14.11.2017 was submitted under clause 6(2) of Order, 1967 seeking utilisation of the W.A. No. 293/2020 : 3 : property for other purposes other than paddy cultivation and agricultural operations. Fact remains, Sections 27A to 27C were introduced to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (for short 'the Act, 2008') on and with effect from 30.12.2017. Thereafter, if an owner of an unnotified land under the provisions of Act, 2008 requires to utilise such land for other purposes other than the paddy cultivation, the application is to be submitted before the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector as per Section 27A of Act, 2008. Prior to the introduction of the said provisions, insofar as paddy lands are concerned, the sole provision was to submit an application before the Revenue Divisional Officer under clause 6(2) of Order, 1967, seeking utilisation for other purposes. 3. Evidently, the application submitted by the writ petitioners was before the appointed day i.e., 30.12.2017, of introducing Sections 27A to 27C of Act, 2008. It is clear from the provisions of Section 27A that, on and with effect from the date of introduction of Section 27A ie., on 30.12.2017, all applications in respect of unnotified land for W.A. No. 293/2020 : 4 : utilisation for other purposes other than the paddy cultivation have to be considered under Section 27A of Act, 2008. It was accordingly that the learned single Judge, as per Ext.P2 judgment, set aside the order of the authority to that extent imposing conditions of payment as provided under Section 27A and directed the Tahsildar to consider the application dehors the provisions of Section 27C of Act, 2008. Section 27C read thus: 27C. Changes in records.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any judgment, decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or any other Authority, wherever a part of a survey number or subdivision is permitted to be converted under Sections 8, 9, 10 or 27A of this Act, a new subdivision shall be created for the extent for which such orders for conversion are issued. (2) Where the paddy land or unnotified land is duly converted as per the provisions of this Act, the Tahsildar shall reassess the land tax under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 (13 of 1961) and make necessary entries in revenue records relating to such lands. (3) Where such changes are recorded in revenue records, the number and date of the order and the authority granting sanction, the survey number of the lands for which sanction has been accorded, extend of the land in each survey number for which W.A. No. 293/2020 : 5 : sanction has been accorded and the revised land tax shall be clearly recorded ensuring that the old entries are legible. (4) Tahsildar shall conduct periodical inspection to ensure that changes in revenue records are in accordance with sub-Section (3). (5) No attempt shall be made to alter or change or modify the revenue records relating to the paddy land or wetland or unnotified land otherwise than in accordance with sub-Section (3).” 4. However, the application submitted by the writ petitioners was considered by the Tahsildar and directed the writ petitioners to remit payments as provided under Section 27A of Act, 2008. It was accordingly challenging the said order of the Tahsildar dated 28.10.2019, the writ petition in question was filed by the respondents herein. The learned single Judge, after assimilating the fact situation, has found that in view of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 vis-a-vis the amended provision of Act, 2008 as discussed above, the Tahsildar went wrong by passing Ext.P3 order directing the writ petitioners to remit necessary fee as prescribed under Section 27A for taking necessary action under Section 27C of Act, 2008. W.A. No. 293/2020 : 6 : 5. We have heard learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri. Tek Chand for the appellants and Sri. T. P. Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 6. Learned Government Pleader addressed the arguments in accordance with the contentions put forth in the appeal. However, fact remains, the issue raised in the writ appeal was considered by this Division Bench itself in **Tahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk and another v. Renjith George** [2020 (1) KHC 865 (DB) and held that if application is submitted in respect of an unnotified land prior to the introduction of Sections 27A to 27C of Act, 2008, necessarily, the requirements contained under the amended provisions of Act, 2008 cannot be insisted upon. 7. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the contentions put forth in the writ appeal has no legal or factual sustenance. That apart, the directions contained in Ext.P2 judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in the earlier round of litigation has become conclusive and binding and therefore, the Tahsildar was W.A. No. 293/2020 : 7 : duty bound to carry out the directions contained in the judgment and it was taking into account that aspect the learned single Judge has passed the impugned judgment. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned single Judge. Resultantly, writ appeal fails, and it is accordingly dismissed. sd/- **S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.** sd/- **SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.** Rv W.A. No. 293/2020 : 8 :