High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-08-29Writ petition disposed of; the 2nd respondent t...

Thomas John v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Tower, Thirunakkara; Tahsildar (LR), Taluk Office, Kottayam; Sub Collector, Collectorate, Kottayam; State of Kerala, represented by Secretary, Department of Revenue

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No. 20536 of 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2022-08-29
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to process the applicant’s application for re-assessment of tax and to make the necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register, and to pass a decision thereon within six weeks.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of; the 2nd respondent to process the application for re-assessment of tax and make necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register, with a decision within six weeks.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Thomas John

Respondents

Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Tower, Thirunakkara P.O., Kottayam – 686001
Tahsildar (LR), Taluk Office, Kottayam – 686001
Sub Collector, Collectorate, Collectorate P.O., Kottayam – 686002
State of Kerala, represented by Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram – 695001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Gikku Jacob

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. Syamank B S, GP

Case Synopsis & Summary

Thomas John, the petitioner, seeks modification of the Basic Tax Register for his land in Re-Survey No. 340/1/3 and 340/1/4, Block 19, Nattakam Village, Kottayam Taluk. He challenges Ext.P6, a 06.01.2022 order directing initiation of proceedings under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (KCPWL Act). The petitioner’s predecessor had obtained permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLU Order) in 1984 to use the land for non-agricultural purposes (Ext.P3). The petitioner argues that because he purchased only part of the land covered by Ext.P3, he cannot be required to produce the original KLU order; Ext.P4 demanded production of the original, which is unavailable to him. Ext.P6, directing action under the KCPWL Act, is contended to be illegal since the KLU order predates the 2008 Act. The Government Pleader notes that if KLU conditions are not met, the 2008 Act applies, but the files are not traceable. The Court discusses Section 27A and 27C of the KCPWL Act and cites a Division Bench ruling (Fr. Jose Uppani) to hold that further entries may be made on the basis of the KLU order. The petition is disposed of with directions to process the re-assessment under Section 6A.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 - Section 6AKerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 27AKerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 - Section 27C

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner contends that the land is covered by the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1984 (KLU Order) and that production of the original KLU order is not feasible, since only a part of the land is held by him. He seeks to proceed under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 to re-assess tax and to update the Basic Tax Register. Ext.P6, directing action under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, is alleged to be illegal, as it undermines the prior KLU order and the section 27A/27C framework. The Tahsildar is urged to rely on the KLU order rather than impose the 2008 Act’s proceedings, and the original order need not be produced where not in the petitioner’s possession.

Contentions of Respondents

Government Pleader submits that non-compliance with KLU conditions can invite application of the KCPWL Act, 2008. The KLU order is from 1984 and the relevant file could not be traced; Tahsildar must verify genuineness of the KLU order. The argument emphasizes that if the KLU path is not followed or if documents are unavailable, the 2008 Act’s provisions may apply; Section 27A and related provisions may be relevant in recognizing the post-KLU regime.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others	2020 (4) KHC 394	Positive	Cited to support that Section 27C( Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008) cannot apply when orders under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order exist; additional entries should be made on the basis of the KLU Order.

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 Thomas John v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Tower, Thirunakkara; Tahsildar (LR), Taluk Office, Kottayam; Sub Collector, Collectorate, Kottayam; State of Kerala, represented by Secretary, Department of Revenue 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 N.NAGARESH** **MONDAY, THE 29[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 7TH BHADRA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 20536 OF 2022** ## **PETITIONER** **THOMAS JOHN, AGED 64 YEARS S/O THOMAS KULANGARA, KULANGARA HOUSE, CHINGAVANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM: 686531.** **BY ADV GIKKU JACOB** ## **RESPONDENTS** |**1**|**REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER**| |---|---| ||**REVENUE TOWER, THIRUNAKKARA P.O.,**| ||**KOTTAYAM – 686001.**| |**2**|**TAHSILDAR (LR),**| ||**TALUK OFFICE,**| ||**KOTTAYAM – 686001.**| |**3**|**SUB COLLECTOR,**| ||**COLLECTORATE, COLLECTORATE P.O.,**| ||**KOTTAYAM - 686 002.**| W.P(C) No. 20536 of 2022 2 ] **4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695001.** **SRI.SYAMANTHAK B S, GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P(C) No. 20536 of 2022 ] 3 ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **Dated this the 29[th] day of August, 2022** The petitioner states that he is the owner of 11.76 Ares of property in Re-Survey No.340/1/3 and 8.47 Ares of property in Re-Survey No.340/1/4 of Block No.19 in Nattakam Village of Kottayam Taluk. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6 order dated 06.01.2022 of the Tahsildar (LR). The petitioner seeks to direct the 2[nd] respondent-Tahsildar to pass orders on proceedings No.K4-6946/2021 initiated on the application filed by the petitioner to change the description of the land in Basic Tax Register. 3. The petitioner states that the predecessor-in-interest of the property now possessed by the petitioner approached the Revenue Authorities invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 and obtained Ext.P3 order dated W.P(C) No. 20536 of 2022 4 ] 27.01.1984, whereunder the land owner was permitted to utilise the land for non-agricultural purposes. The petitioner purchased a portion of the land subsequently. 4. Since the petitioner wanted to use the land for more beneficial purposes, the petitioner submitted an application to the Tahsildar (LR) seeking to re-assess the tax of the land and make necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register. An application was filed under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act,1961. 5. The petitioner states that by Ext.P4 communication dated 31.08.2021, the petitioner was required to produce the original of the order passed in the year 1984 under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. According to the petitioner, he has purchased only a part of the larger extent of land covered by the KLU Order and therefore the petitioner possesses only a photocopy of the order. 6. Subsequently, the Tahsildar (LR) issued Ext.P6 communication to the petitioner requiring the petitioner to W.P(C) No. 20536 of 2022 5 ] initiate proceedings under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules made thereunder to change the nature of the land in Revenue records. 7. The petitioner would submit that Ext.P6 is illegal and unwarranted. The petitioner's predecessor has obtained permission under the KLU Order in the year 1984 and at this distance of time, the respondents cannot persuade the petitioner to invoke the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 especially when the KLU Order was prior to the coming into force of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. 8. The petitioner therefore seeks to direct the Tahsildar to process the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act and to pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible. 9. The Government Pleader entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Government Pleader pointed out that if the land owner has not complied with the conditions in W.P(C) No. 20536 of 2022 6 ] the KLU Order, then indeed the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 will come into play. The Government Pleader submitted that the KLU Order is seen passed in 1984 and in spite of earnest efforts, the respondents could not trace out the files relating to the KLU Order. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents. 11 **.** According to the petitioner, the land possessed by the petitioner is covered by a KLU Order of the year 1984. This is evident from Ext.P3. The Tahsildar required the petitioner to produce the original of the KLU Order in order to consider the application. It has to be noted that the petitioner has only purchased a small extent of the total property covered by Ext.P3 KLU Order and therefore, one cannot expect that the petitioner will be holding the original of the KLU Order. W.P(C) No. 20536 of 2022 7 ] 12. The KLU Order has been passed by the Revenue Authorities and the Tahsildar has a duty to verify whether Ext.P3 order is genuine or not. The Tahsildar cannot force the petitioner to produce an order which is not in the possession of the petitioner. The Tahsildar cannot require the petitioner to comply with an act which is impossible. 13. This Court has considered the applicability of Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. In similar situation, a Division Bench of this Court in _**District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani**_ _**and others**_ [2020 (4) KHC 394] held that the provisions of Section 27C of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 can have no application when orders are secured under the KLU Order. In such case, additional entries will have to be made by the Revenue Officers on the basis of the orders passed under the KLU Order. The issue agitated by the petitioner is covered by the judgment of this Court in _**Fr.Jose Uppani** (_ supra). W.P(C) No. 20536 of 2022 8 ] In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2[nd] respondent to process the application for re-assessment of tax and for making necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register submitted by the petitioner and take a decision thereon within a period of six weeks. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH, JUDGE** smm/ 02.09.2022 W.P(C) No. 20536 of 2022 9 ] ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20536/2022** **PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 16.12.2014 IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER. - Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 28.9.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE KERALA LAND UTILIZATION ORDER DATED 27.1.1984 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.08.2021 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 30.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT-P5. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** W.P(C) No. 20536 of 2022 10 ] W.P(C) No. 20536 of 2022 11 ]