Sulekha Beevi and Muhammed Jazeel v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Paravur Taluk; Tahsildar (LR), Paravur; Village Officer, Alangad, Ernakulam District

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **THURSDAY, THE 18[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 32412 OF 2019** ## **PETITIONERS:** 1 SULEKHA BEEVI, AGED 59 YEARS W/O.LATE ABDUL JALEEL, JAZEEL MANZIL, KUTTAMASSERY, THOTTUMUGHAM P.O., ALUVA - 683 105. 2 MUHAMMED JAZEEL, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O LATE ABDUL JALEEL, JALEEL MANZIL, KUTTAMASSERY, THOTTUMUGHAM P.O, ALUVA-683105 BY ADVS. BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.P.U.VINOD KUMAR SRI.AVINASH P RAVEENDRAN SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH SMT.KADIJA JASMINE ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FIRST FLOOR, KB JACOB RD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682030. 2 THA TAHSILDAR (LR), PARAVUR TAKUK, FIRST FLOOR, ABOVE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM - 683 513. 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALANGAD, ALUVA DIVISION, PARAVUR TALUK, ALANGAD S.O, ERNAKULAM - 683 511. RIYAL DEVASSY-GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 32412 OF 2019** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** ## This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: _“(i) call for the records leading to Exhibits P4 and P6 (ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing condition Nos. 1 to 3 in Exhibit P4 and also Exhibit P6 to the extent to which, the classification of the land is retained as Nilam itself in Form B Provisional Notice of Demand and also in the BTR and entering in the Remarks column of Thandaper Register that permission has been granted for conversion of user for non-agricultural purposes on conditions, as per Order dated 26/09/2019 of the 1[st] respondent under the Clause 6 (2) of the KLU Order;_ _iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to enter the classification of land having an extent of 33.500 cents in Survey Nos. 372/1 and 372/2 A-2 of Alangad Village in Paravur Taluk in Ernakulam District belonging to the petitioners, as garden land / purayidom early as possible in the B.T Register/ Thandaper Register by making appropriate additions and assess the Land Tax accordingly, treating it as purayidom;”_ ## 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned ## Government Pleader. ## 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the owners in possession of 33.500 cents of property in Survey Nos.372/1 and 372/A-2 of Alangad Village, Paravur Taluk, **WP(C) NO. 32412 OF 2019** **3** Ernakulam District. It is submitted that the petitioners had submitted application for permission to use the property for other purposes under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. When the said application was not considered, the petitioners had approached this Court and Ext.P1 judgment had been issued. This Court had directed the consideration of the application made by the petitioners after consideration of all relevant aspects. It is submitted that Ext.P2 proceedings had been issued permitting the user of the land for other purposes, however further directing the petitioners to make an application under Section 27A. The petitioners had again approached this Court challenging the said requirement and Ext.P3 judgment was issued stating that the application is liable to be considered under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 and not under the provisions of Section 27A of the 2008 Act. Thereafter, Ext.P4 order was passed permitting the use of the property for other purposes. However, it was stated in Ext.P4 that the said order would not automatically permit the alteration in the Basic Tax Register. 4. The petitioners filed a Contempt of Court Case. This Court, by Ext.P5 judgment held that the petitioners would have to file an **WP(C) NO. 32412 OF 2019** **4** application under Form A for the correction of the Basic Tax Register in terms of the Kerala Land Tax Act and that therefore there is no contempt. The petitioners thereupon submitted such an application. However, on the ground that Ext.P4 order is a conditional order, Ext.P6 was passed by the 2[nd] respondent retaining the category of the property in the BTR as Nilam but adding in the remarks column that permission had been granted by the Sub Collector for use of the property for other purposes subject to conditions. The learned counsel for the petitioners challenge the said findings in Ext.P6. It is submitted that this Court in several decisions including in _**Tahsildar v. Renjith George [2020 (2) KLT 13]**_ and in _**District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others [2020 (4) KLT 612]**_ has specifically held that where a change in the BTR is liable to be carried out in terms of Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, the converted property is to be recorded as Purayidom/dry land in the Basic Tax Register and there cannot be a retention of the property as Nilam with remarks in the remarks column of the revenue records. 5. The learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P4 is only a conditional order. It is further submitted that the specific condition **WP(C) NO. 32412 OF 2019** **5** provided in Ext.P4 that the order cannot be put to use for effecting alterations in the Basic Tax Register would stand in the way of the consideration of the request made by the petitioners. It is submitted that in the above circumstances, the order passed by the 2[nd] respondent cannot be held to be illegal. 6. I have considered the contentions advanced. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners had challenged the conditions provided in Ext.P4 also in view of the fact that it is the specific case of the petitioners that the property had been converted prior to the enactment of the 2008 Act and therefore the petitioners would be entitled to an order for permission for use of the property for other purposes in terms of Clause 6(2). It is submitted that after an order under Clause 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order is rendered and the property is no longer paddy land, when an application is submitted thereafter under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, the 2[nd] respondent was duty bound to enter the category of the property in the Basic Tax Register as Purayidom/dry land in terms of the Kerala Land Tax Act and that the retention of the entry as Nilam is completely unjustifiable. **WP(C) NO. 32412 OF 2019** **6** 7. Having considered the contentions advanced as well as the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 as well as the judgments of this Court in _**Tahsildar v. Renjith George [2020 (2) KLT 13]**_ and in _**District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others [2020 (4) KLT 612],**_ I am of the opinion that the contention raised by the petitioners is liable to be accepted. This Court in Ext.P3 judgment had considered the order passed as Ext.P2 and had held that the application submitted by the petitioner being prior to 30.12.2017 ought to have been considered under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. It is under the said provisions that Ext.P4 order was passed. Therefore, the further contention provided in Ext.P4 that the order by itself would not enable the alteration of the Basic Tax Register can only mean that the petitioner ought to have been made a further application under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act. This Court, in Ext.P5 judgment, has also clarified this aspect. In the reported decisions of this Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner also, it was held that where an order of conversion has been granted under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order then, if the identity of the property is not under dispute, the property is **WP(C) NO. 32412 OF 2019** **7** liable to be entered in the Basic Tax Register after making due alterations/additions to the same and dry land/Purayidom and the entry in the remarks column with regard to the order passed under Clause 6(2) is not justifiable. The conditions provided in Ext.P4, therefore cannot be a reason to reject the application filed by the petitioner under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act or to refuse to enter the nature of the property as dry land after permission is duly granted under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order. In the result, Ext.P6 order is set aside. There will be a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to consider the application filed in Form A in terms of Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 submitted by the petitioners and to effect the corrections in accordance with the directions of this Court and to record the nature of the property as dry land/Purayidom. Appropriate steps shall be taken within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. ## **Sd/-** ## **ANU SIVARAMAN** **JUDGE** SVP **WP(C) NO. 32412 OF 2019** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32412/2019** PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/06/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. (C) NO.29977/2016. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05/03/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 30/05/2017 UNDER CLAUSE 6 OF THE KERALA LAND UTILIZATION ORDER, 1967. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14/02/2019 IN W.P.(C) NO.8612/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/04/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19/09/2019 IN CONTEMPT CASE (C) NO.1476/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/11/2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE PROVISIONAL NOTICE OF DEMAND WHEREIN THE CLASSIFICATION OF LAND IS RETAINED AS NILAM ITSELF, RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER.