S.G. Vijayakumar v. District Collector, Collectorate, Kottayam; Tahzildar, Taluk Office, Changanassery; Local Level Monitoring Committee; Vazhappally Grama Panchayat

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.8199 OF 2020(Y)** ## **PETITIONER:** **S.G.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, SANTHA BHAVAN, PERUNNA P.O., CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 102.** **BY ADVS. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP SRI.S.SREEDEV** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 632.** - **2 THE TAHAZILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHANGANASSERY - 689 001.** - **3 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENOR/AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, VAZHAPPALLY, KURISUMMOODU P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 104.** - **4 VAZHAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAZHAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 104.** **BY ADVS. SRI.K.J.MANU RAJ, GOVT.PLEADER, SRI.SEBASTIAN JOSEPH(KURISUMOOTTIL)** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.8199 OF 2020(Y) 2 ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** ------------------------------------------W.P.(C)No.8199 of 2020 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 17[th] day of March, 2020 ## **JUDGMENT** The case set up in this Writ Petition (Civil) is as follows:Petitioner obtained 12.20 Ares of land comprising in Survey No.212/1-1-1 of Vazhappally West Village in Changanassery Taluk by virtue of Exhibit-P1 sale deed. The property was situated as partially filled and coconut trees were situated about 40 years back and 1[st] respondent granted permission for reclamation under Kerala Land Utilisation Order in 2004 as per Exhibit-P2. As per Ex.P2 order petitioner's land was completely converted to a dry land in the year 2004 itself. Petitioner's land is excluded from the Databank by the Local Level Monitoring Committee also as per Exhibit-P3. Petitioner has submitted Exhibit-P5 application before the 2[nd] respondent producing Exhibit-P2 order of the 1[st] respondent and requested to re-assess the land tax under Section 6(3) of the Land Tax Act and also to add the classification as dry land in the Basic Tax Register. But the 2[nd] respondent orally WP(C).No.8199 OF 2020(Y) 3 informed the petitioner that he has to remit 25% of the scheduled fees as per Rule 12(17) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Rules, otherwise the land tax of the petitioner's property will not be reassessed and its classification will not be changed in the Basic Tax Register. This Court in _**Tahsildar V. Renjith George**_ [2020 (2) KLT 13] held that “ _Revenue Authorities are not entitled to insist upon or to direct the writ petitioner to secure an order under Section 27A of the Act, 2008 to change the revenue records in accordance with the provisions of Section 27C of Act, 2008 as the petitioner has already secured an order under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order_ .” 2. It is in the light of the above factual averments and contentions that the petitioners have filed instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:- _“i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding 2[nd] respondent to add the classification of Petitioner's 1.20 Ares of land comprising in Survey No.212/1-1-1 of Vazhappally West Village in Changanassery Taluk as “Dry Land” in “Thandaper Register” and “Basic Tax Register” forth with._ _ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order of direction commanding 2[nd] respondent to dispose of Ext.P5 application dehors to Rule 12(17) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Rules._ _iii) issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case.”_ WP(C).No.8199 OF 2020(Y) 4 3. Heard Sri.T.P. Pradeep, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.J. Manu Raj, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.Sebastian Joseph (Kurisumoottil), learned Standing Counsel appearing for 4[th] respondent (Vazhappally Grama Panchayat). 4. In the instant case, it is beyond any factual controversy that the subject property has been converted as garden land/purayidom long prior to 12.08.2008, the date of coming into force of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2008 Act' for brevity). It has also been noted that even before coming into force of the Act the petitioner had filed requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, for permission to convert the land as garden land/purayidom and said application has been filed by the petitioner on 08.06.2004 which has been allowed in favour of the petitioner under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, by the 1[st] respondent-District Collector, as can been seen from Exhibit-P2 proceedings dated 18.10.2004. Reference No.1 in Exhibit-P2 would show that the petitioner has submitted the said application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, as early as on 08.06.2004. So, in the WP(C).No.8199 OF 2020(Y) 5 instant case, petitioner has even submitted the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, which was allowed in his favour, even before coming into force of the 2008 Act. Further, from Exhibit-P3 it is also clear that petitioner's land has been deleted from the land Data Bank by 3[rd] respondent-Local Level Monitoring Committee. Now, petitioner has submitted Exhibit-P5 application dated 10.03.2020 before the 2[nd] respondent-Tahazildar, seeking for consequential orders for fresh assessment of the land tax under Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act and also to add the classification as dry land in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) to show the property as garden land/purayidom as the earlier entries in the BTR is shown as Nilam/Paddyland. According to the petitioner, 2[nd] respondent has orally directed the petitioner to pay 25% of the scheduled fee as per Rule 12(17) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Rules. It is in the light of these averments that the petitioner has filed instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the afore mentioned prayers. 5. By now, no longer _res integra_ and the matter in issue is fully covered in favour of the petitioner by series of decisions of this Court as in It is no longer _res integra_ and it is dully covered in WP(C).No.8199 OF 2020(Y) 6 favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, by a series of decisions of this Court as in _**Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer**_ [2019 (3) KLT 838], _**Renjith.K.Paul v.Revenue Divisional Officer**_ [2019 (2) KLT 262), _**LLMC, Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath v. Mariumma**_ [2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB)], _**Tahsildar, Thodupuzha Taluk and another v. Renjith George**_ [2020 (1) KHC 865 (DB)] that where the subject property has been converted as garden land or purayidam much prior to coming into force of the 2008 Act and where the property holder has filed requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, before 3012-2017 (which is the date of coming into force of the amended provisions of 2008 Act, which was introduced Sec.27 A thereof), then the property holder is entitled to get his request for conversion of the property strictly in terms of Rule 6(2) of the KLU order, 1967 and such a case the property holder cannot be mulcted to face the adverse and rigorous conditions prescribed as per the amended provisions of 2008 Act, including Sec.27A thereof as well as the rules framed thereunder. 6. Further it has been also held that in those decisions more particularly in the aforestated Division Bench decisions in WP(C).No.8199 OF 2020(Y) 7 _**Mariumma’s case**_ (supra) [2015 (2)KLT 516] and _**Renjith's case**_ (supra) [2020 (1) KHC 865 (DB)], etc., that where the property holder has filed the requisite application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, prior to 30.12.2017, the date of coming into force of the amended provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, and such a property holder gets orders under Rule 6(2) Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, for conversion of the property as garden land/purayidom, then the property holder is equally entitled to maintain an application under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, for making additional entries in the BTR to show the property as garden land or paddy land, etc. In such case the property holder cannot be compelled to pay any of the amounts conceived as per the amended Rules and provisions of the Act including any of the amended provisions of the Rules framed under the amended provisions of the Act. Moreover, it is to be born in mind that this is a case where the petitioner has, in fact, secured Exhibit.P3 orders under Rule 6(3) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, from the competent revenue Authority, concerned, even prior to the coming into force of the 2008 Act, as can been seen from Exhibit-P2 proceedings dated 18.10.2004. WP(C).No.8199 OF 2020(Y) 8 Therefore, there is no question on the petitioner having to pay any of the amounts required as per the amended provisions of the 2008 Act and the amended provisions of the Rules, framed thereunder. 7. Consequentially it is ordered that the 2[nd] respondentTahazildar will immediately, on the request made by the petitioner on Exhibit-P5 application and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, should pass necessary orders in the matter of making of additional entries in the BTR to show the property as garden land/purayidom, without any further delay, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment in the light of the aforecited decisions rendered by this Court as in _**Mariumma’s case**_ (supra)[2015 (2) KLT 516 (DB)], _**Renjith’s case**_ (supra) [2020 (1)KHC 865 (DB)]. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of. ## **Sd/-** ## **ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE** Skk//17032020 WP(C).No.8199 OF 2020(Y) 9 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DOCUMENT NO.1480/2004 OF CHANGANASSERY SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.E936280/2004 DATED 18/10/2004. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 17/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM A SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 10/03/2020.** **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL**