High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-08-23Writ petition allowed; direction to consider Fo...

UMMER, IBRAHIMKUTTY and AKBAR v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM; REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM; THE TAHSILDAR(LR) KUNNATHUNADU TALUK OFFICE; THE VILLAGE OFFICER KUNNATHUNAD VILLAGE OFFICE

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No.27983 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2023-08-23
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition allowed. The 3rd respondent is directed to consider Exts. P5 and P5(A) Form-A applications and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within one month.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; direction to consider Form-5 applications and pass orders within one month

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

UMMER
IBRAHIMKUTTY
AKBAR

Respondents

The District Collector, Civil Station, Kakkanad, Ernakulam
Revenue Divisional Officer, Moovattupuzha, Ernakulam
The Tahsildar(LR), Kunathunadu Taluk Office, Poopani Road, Perumbavoor, Ernakulam
The Village Officer, Kunathunad Village Office, Kunathunad, Ernakulam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Adv. Unnikrishnan V. Alapatt

Counsels for Respondents

• Adv. Deepa Narayanan, Senior Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

UMMER, IBRAHIMKUTTY, and AKBAR filed this writ petition challenging the omission of the Tahsildar in entertaining their representation under Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 for reassessment of Basic Tax after an order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (Ext. P3) permitted conversion of their land to non-agricultural use in 1996. The petitioners own 88.85 acres in Survey No.6/1 of Kunnathunadu and sought reassessment of Basic Tax and entry corrections in the Basic Tax Register, arguing that the 1996 enabling order altered the land’s status and that keeping the land shown as paddy land is erroneous. The respondents contended that Ext. P3’s validity and current land status must be verified before any reassessment, given the long gap since 1996 and the need to authenticate Ext. P3. The court relied on Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala and District Collector, Ernakulam v. Fr. Jose Uppani to reiterate that once a conversion order under KLUO 1967 is in place, a fresh assessment under Section 6A KLT Act is required, and prior BTR entries may be superseded. The petition is allowed with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider Exts. P5 and P5(A) Form-A applications within one month and pass orders in accordance with law.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 – Clause 6; Rule 6(2)Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 – Section 6AKerala Land Tax Act, 1961 – Section 6(3)Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 – Section 27A

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Once enabling order under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 permits conversion of land, earlier BTR entries (Nilam/Paddy Land) become superfluous and a fresh assessment under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act is required.
Revenue officials are obliged under law to reassess the property after change of land use upon verification of genuineness of the enabling order (Ext. P3).
Precedent: If orders under KLUO precede the cut-off date for Section 27A, subsequent KLT Act applications must be considered (as per District Collector, Ernakulam v. Fr. Jose Uppani).

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that Ext. P3 (1996) under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 enabled conversion of the land for non-agricultural purposes. Consequently, the land’s tax regime and Basic Tax registration must be reassessed under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, and relevant corrections made in the Basic Tax Register. They filed Exts. P5 and P5(A) Form-5 applications and argue that the Tahsildar must decide these applications in light of the enabling order, and that the Data Bank removal and corrected land status are warranted. They rely on Mary Abraham and the Uppani decisions to support the duty to reassess after a conversion order.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend Ext. P3’s veracity and the present status of the land require verification before any re-assessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. Since Ext. P3 dates to 1996, the genuineness of the order and the current land status must be ascertained, and the Tahsildar’s omission to act cannot be ignored. They urge caution and due process, noting that the land’s current classification and status need confirmation prior to any re-assessment, and that the Data Bank and Form-5 processes were not automatically dispositive without verification.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala and others	2020 (4) KLT 448	Positive	Cited for the proposition that an enabling order under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 requires a fresh reassessment under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act once the land use has been converted.
District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others	2020 (4) KLT 612	Positive	Cited to support that pre-cut-off-date orders under KLUO can be considered along with subsequent KLT Act applications for reassessment.

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 UMMER, IBRAHIMKUTTY and AKBAR v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM; REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MOOVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM; THE TAHSILDAR(LR) KUNNATHUNADU TALUK OFFICE; THE VILLAGE OFFICER KUNNATHUNAD VILLAGE OFFICE 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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 27983 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONERS:** **1 UMMER AGED 74 YEARS, S/O ABDUL KADAR, NAMBIPUNNILATH HOUSE, PAPPINIVATTAM, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR, PIN – 680664.** - **2 IBRAHIMKUTTY AGED 66 YEARS, S/O ABDUL KADAR, NAMBIPUNNILATH HOUSE, PAPPINIVATTAM, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR, PIN – 680664.** - **3 AKBAR AGED 58 YEARS, S/O ABDUL KADAR, NAMBIPUNNILATH HOUSE, PAPPINIVATTAM, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR, PIN – 680664.** ## **BY ADV UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682021.** - **2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MOOVATTUPUZHA ERNAKLULAM – 686673.** - **3 THE TAHSILDAR(LR) KUNNATHUNADU TALUK OFFICE, POOPPANI ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 683543.** - **4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KUNNATHUNAD VILLAGE OFFICE, KUNNATHUNAD, ERNAKULAM – 683565.** **BY ADV.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** 2 **W.P.(C) No.27983 of 2023** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 ## **W.P.(C) No.27983 of 2023** ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 23[rd] day of August, 2023 The petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by the omission of the 3[rd] respondent-Tahsildar in entertaining a representation submitted by the petitioners for re-assessment of the rate of Basic Tax on land and for making necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register. 2. The petitioners are owners of 88.85 Ares of property in Survey No.6/1 of Kunnathunadu Village in Ernakulam District. The property in question was purchased in the year 1996. The predecessor-in-interest of the land approached the Revenue Divisional Officer invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 seeking to permit to use the land for nonagricultural purposes. The Revenue Divisional Officer passed Ext.P3 order under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 permitting to use the land for non-agricultural purposes. 4 ## **W.P.(C) No.27983 of 2023** 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though Ext.P3 order was passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 in the year 1996 the land of the petitioners is not reassessed for fixing rate of Basic Tax and the property of the petitioners is still described as paddy land in the Revenue records. The petitioners submitted Exts.P5 and P5(A) application invoking Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 seeking to reassess the Basic Tax and to make necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register. The Tahsildar, however, has not passed any orders on the application. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court. 4. The Senior Government Pleader entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and resisted the writ petition. The Senior Government Pleader controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioners in the writ petition. It is submitted that as Ext.P3 proceedings are of the year 1996, the veracity and the genuineness of Ext.P3 proceedings under the ## **W.P.(C) No.27983 of 2023** 5 Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 are liable to be verified. The present status of the land will also have to be ascertained, before re-assessment of Basic Tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents. 6. This Court has considered the issue of reassessment of land tax on the basis of the orders obtained under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 in the judgment in **Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala and others** [2020 (4) KLT 448]. This Court held that once enabling order is passed under Rule 6(2) of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 permitting conversion of the land, then the earlier entries in the BTR showing the land as Nilam, Paddy Land, etc. will become superfluous and redundant and the competent Revenue officials like the Tahsildar are obliged under law to make a fresh assessment of the property under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. ## **W.P.(C) No.27983 of 2023** 6 7. A Division Bench of this Court also considered the issue in **District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others** [2020 (4) KLT 612] and the Division Bench held that when an applicant has secured orders under the Kerala Land Utiliation Order prior to the cut-off date on which Section 27A was introduced to the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the competent Revenue officials are bound to consider the subsequent application submitted under the provisions of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961. 8. As the land was included in the Data Bank, the petitioners submitted Form-5 application, pursuant to which the Revenue Divisional Officer / Sub Collector has removed the land from the Data Bank. 9. As the nature of the land of the petitioners has been permitted to be changed pursuant to passing of a statutory order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, the competent authority is bound to re-assess the rate of Basic Tax in respect of 7 ## **W.P.(C) No.27983 of 2023** the land and to make necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register, if necessary, after verifying the veracity/genuineness of the permission obtained under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 produced by the petitioners. The writ petition is therefore allowed. The 3[rd] respondent is directed to consider Exts.P5 and P5(A) Form-A application submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of one month. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH JUDGE** ams **W.P.(C) No.27983 of 2023** 8 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27983/2023** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.6821/2007 OF PUTHENKURISSU S.R.O. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 7-11-2022 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 8.8.1996 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 3-8-2023 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16-8-2023 ALONG WITH FORM-A Exhibit P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 16-8-2023 ALONG WITH FORM-A**