High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-08-14Writ petition allowed; Tahsildar directed to co...

UMMER K. A and K. E. Abdul Salim v. Secretary, Agricultural Department, Government of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C) No.20460 of 2023

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: N. Nagareesh
Judgment Date: 2023-08-14
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed. The 6th respondent Tahsildar is directed to consider Ext.P11 application submitted by the petitioners, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of one month. The petitioners shall file Form-A if the Tahsildar insists.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed; Tahsildar directed to consider Ext.P11 and pass orders within one month; Form-A may be filed if required.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

UMMER K. A
K. E. Abdul Salim

Respondents

The Secretary, Agricultural Department Government of Kerala
The Deputy Secretary Agriculture Department, Government of Kerala
The Land Revenue Commissioner, Office of the Land Revenue Commissioner
The District Collector, Civil Station, Kakkanad, Ernakulam
The Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Kochi
The Tahsildar, Kannayannur Taluk Office, Kochi
The Village Officer, Thrikkakara North Village Office, Kochi
The Local Level Monitoring Committee Kalamassery Municipality, represented by its Convener, Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Kalamassery Municipality

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• N. Krishna Raja
• Mauli Biniyamin K.S.

Counsels for Respondents

• K. M. Reshmi, Senior Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

UMMER K. A and K. E. Abdul Salim, owners of 75 Ares of land in Thrikkakara North Village, Ernakulam, filed W.P.(C) No. 20460 of 2023 challenging the omission of the 6th respondent Tahsildar from entertaining their Ext.P11 application for reassessment of Basic Tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, and for updating the Basic Tax Register in light of a 2018 permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 to use the land for non-agricultural purposes. The District Collector had granted permission on 11.07.2018, which was appealed and eventually dealt with by the Land Revenue Commissioner in Ext.P4 order under Clause 6 of the KL UO 1967 permitting nonagricultural use but subject to conditions: no red earth and no construction. The petitioners had earlier challenged these conditions in W.P.(C) No.26268/2022; Ext.P10 judgment held that no restriction could be imposed on land use. The petitioners contend that since enabling orders exist, the earlier entries in the Basic Tax Register (Nilam, Paddy Land) are obsolete; therefore Tahsildar must reassess under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and correct the records. The Senior Government Pleader argued that Ext.P4’s status must be verified before re-assessment. The Court relied on Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala and others and District Collector, Ernakulam v. Fr. Jose Uppani et al., and concluded that once conversion is permitted under KL UO 1967, a fresh assessment is mandatory, subject to verification of the enabling order. The petition is allowed; the Tahsildar is directed to consider Ext.P11 and pass orders within one month.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that Ext.P4, issued under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, enabled conversion of land for nonagricultural use; consequently, the pre-existing entries in the Basic Tax Register (Nilam, Paddy Land) become redundant and a fresh assessment under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 is mandatory. They filed Ext.P11 under Section 6(3) of the Act seeking reassessment and entry corrections, but the 6th respondent Tahsildar has not disposed of it. They contend that the omission of reassessment and the continued description of land as paddy/Nilam violates the enabling order and statutory duties. They rely on prior court decisions mandating reassessment after permission to change land use and seek a direction to the Tahsildar to act timely.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that Ext.P4’s validity and genuineness must be verified, and the current status of the land must be ascertained before any reassessment under the Kerala Land Tax Act. They argue for caution and compliance with due process, including verification of the enabling order under the KL UO 1967 and confirmation of land status before re-assessment.

Cited Precedents (7)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala and others	2020 (4) KLT 448	Positive	This Court relied on the Mary Abraham decision to hold that once enabling order under Rule 6(2) KL UO 1967 is issued permitting land use change, the prior BTR entries become redundant and a fresh assessment under Section 6A LTA 1961 is required.
District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose Uppani and others	2020 (4) KLT 612	Positive	Division Bench held that where orders under the KL UO 1967 predate the cut-off date for Section 27A, the competent Revenue officials must consider subsequent applications under the LTA 1961 for reassessment.
W.P.(C) No. 26268/2022	06.12.2022	Positive	Exhibit P10 judgment is cited as holding that there can be no restriction imposed on land use; used by the Court to support the necessity of re-assessment after the enabling order.
W.P.(C) No. 23144/2017	13.07.2017	Mentioned Only	Appendix cites this judgment but the main judgment does not elaborate its reasoning within the text.
W.P.(C) No. 33695/2019	11.12.2019	Mentioned Only	Appendix cites this judgment; not discussed in the reasoning portion.
Con.Case (C) No. 599 of 2021	23.07.2021	Mentioned Only	Appendix cites this constitutional case; no treatment discussed in the judgment text.
Con.Case (C) No. 599 of 2021	(same as above)	Mentioned Only	Duplicate entry in appendix; treated as mentioned only.

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 K. A and K. E. Abdul Salim v. Secretary, Agricultural Department, Government of Kerala and Others 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 14[TH] DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 20460 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 UMMER K. A AGED 65 YEARSS/O. ABOOBACKER, KIZHAKKE ANJIKATHU HOUSE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., KOCHI, PIN – 682033.** - **2 K. E. ABDUL SALIM AGED 49 YEARS/O. LATE K A IBRAHIM, KIZHAKKE ANJIKATHU HOUSE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., KOCHI, PIN – 682033.** **BY ADVS. N.KRISHNA RAJA MAULI BINIYAMIN K.S.** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.** - **2 THE DEPUTY SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001.** - **3 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033.** - **4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTORCIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682030.** 2 ## **W.P.(C) No.20460 of 2023** - **5 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, K B JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682001.** - **6 THE TAHSILDARKANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, PARK AVENUE, NEAR SUBHASH PARK, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, PIN – 682011.** - **7 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE OFFICE, KOONAMTHAI, PADIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682024.** - **8 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, VADACODE P.O., KANGARAPPADY, KOCHI, PIN – 682021.** **BY ADV.K M RESHMI, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 ## **W.P.(C) No.20460 of 2023** ## **J U D G M E N T** Dated this the 14[th] day of August, 2023 The petitioners are before this Court aggrieved by the omission of the 6[th] 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 75 Ares of property in Survey Nos.197/8, 197/12, 197/13 and 197/14 of Thrikkakara North Village in Ernakulam District. The petitioners approached the District Collector invoking the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 seeking to permit to use the land for nonagricultural purposes. The District Collector passed an order on 11.07.2018 allowing the request for permission on certain 4 ## **W.P.(C) No.20460 of 2023** conditions. Aggrieved by the conditions, the petitioners filed an appeal against the order dated 11.07.2018. 3. The Land Revenue Commissioner who considered the appeal passed Ext.P4 order under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 permitting to use the land for nonagricultural purposes. 4. In Ext.P4 also, it was directed that the petitioners shall not convert the land using red earth and shall not make any construction in the property. The petitioners challenged those conditions filing W.P.(C) No.26268 of 2022. By Ext.P10 judgment, this Court held that no restriction can be imposed for the use of the land. 5. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though Ext.P4 order was passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 in the year 2018, the land of the petitioners are not re-assessed for fixing rate of Basic Tax and the property of the ## **W.P.(C) No.20460 of 2023** 5 petitioners is still described as paddy land in the Revenue records. The petitioners submitted Ext.P11 application invoking Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 seeking to re-assess 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. 6. 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.P4 proceedings are of the year 2018, the veracity and the genuineness of Ext.P4 proceedings under the 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. 6 ## **W.P.(C) No.20460 of 2023** 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior Government Pleader representing the respondents. 8. 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. 9. A Division Bench of this Court also considered the issue in **District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr.Jose** **W.P.(C) No.20460 of 2023** 7 **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. 10. As the nature of the land of the petitioners have been permitted to be changed pursuant to passing of a statutory order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 and as this Court in Ext.P10 judgment has held that no restriction can be imposed on the user of the land, the competent authority is bound to re-assess the rate of Basic Tax in respect of 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 8 ## **W.P.(C) No.20460 of 2023** petitioners. The writ petition is therefore allowed. The 6[th] respondentTahsildar is directed to consider Ext.P11 application submitted by the petitioners, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of one month. The petitioners shall file application in Form-A, if the Tahsildar insists. Sd/- **N. NAGARESH JUDGE** ams 9 ## **W.P.(C) No.20460 of 2023** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20460/2023** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 8TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.06.2017** - **Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.06.2017** **Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P (C) NO. 23144/2017 DATED 13.07.2017** - **Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. L 10-159256/18 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.07.2018** - **Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. LR (A)1-12208/19 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30.10.2019** - **Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P (C) NO. 33695/2019 DATED 11.12.2019** **Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE DATED 24.12.2019** - **Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CON.CASE (C) NO. 599 OF 2021 DATED 23.07.2021** - **Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-05-2022 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P (C) NO. 26268/2022 DATED 06.12.2022 Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF FORM A APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 6A OF KERALA LAND TAX ACT ,1961 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER (WITHOUT ENCLOSURES) SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 22.12.2022** 10 ## **W.P.(C) No.20460 of 2023** **Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 22.12.2022 FOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF EXT.P11 APPLICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER**