Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition allowed; Ext.P6 set aside; Tahsil...

Varghese Alukka v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) No.26572 of 2023

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. Ext.P6 communication is set aside. The 3rd respondent Tahsildar is directed to consider Ext.P4 Form-A submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon within one month.
Final Disposition
Writ petition allowed; Ext.P6 set aside; Tahsildar to consider Ext.P4 and pass orders within one month.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Varghese Alukka

Respondents

  • The District Collector, Collectorate, Ayyantho­le, Thrissur, PIN – 680 003
  • The Local Level Monitoring Committee Chalakkudy Municipality, rep. by its Agriculture Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Chalakkudy, PIN – 680 307
  • Tahsildar Chalakkudy, Taluk Office, Municipal Town Hall Complex, Main Road, Old Hwy, Chalakkudy, PIN – 680 307
  • The Village Officer Kizhakke Chalakkudy, Chalakkudy, Thrissur District, PIN - 680307
  • The Revenue Divisional Officer Civil Station Annex, Chemmanda Road, Irinjalakuda, Thrissur, PIN – 680 121
  • The Revenue Divisional Officer 1st Floor, Civil Station, Civil Lines Road, Kalyan Nagar, Ayyantho­le, Thrissur, PIN – 680 003
  • The State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Govt. Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram, PIN – 695 001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • C.K. Sreejith
  • • Kozhipurath Praseetha Gopalakrishnan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • K.M. Resmi – Senior Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

This writ petition challenges the omission of the 3rd respondent Tahsildar in entertaining an application filed by the petitioner for re-assessment of the Basic Tax on land and to make necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register after a statutory permission to change land use was granted under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. The petitioner owns 9.36 acres in East Chalakkudy, Thrissur. In 2006, a predecessor obtained Ext.P3 under the KLUO (Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967) allowing non-agricultural use of the land. Despite this, the land was not re-assessed for Basic Tax and continued to appear as paddy land in the Basic Tax Register. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 (Form-A) under Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, seeking re-assessment and updated BTR entries, but no orders were passed. The respondents contend Ext.P3 requires verification of genuineness and current land status, and that re-assessment should await factual verification. Relying on Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala and District Collector, Ernakulam v. Fr. Jose Uppani, the judgment holds that once a enabling order under Rule 6(2) of the KLUO permits conversion, earlier BTR entries become superfluous and a fresh assessment under Sec. 6A is required if the permission is genuine. The petition is allowed; Ext.P6 is set aside; the Tahsildar is directed to consider Ext.P4 and pass orders within one month.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (Rule 6(2))Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961Kerala 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 permitting conversion, earlier entries such as Nilam/Paddy Land become superfluous and redundant.
  • The competent Revenue officials are obliged to re-assess the land under Section 6A of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 and update the Basic Tax Register after verifying the permission under the KLUO.
  • If orders under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order pre-date the cut-off date for Section 27A, the Revenue officials are bound to consider subsequent application under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argues that though Ext.P3 (2006) under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 permitted conversion of the land for non-agricultural purposes, there has been no re-assessment of Basic Tax and the land is still described as paddy land in the Basic Tax Register. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 (Form-A) under Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 seeking re-assessment and updated entries in the Basic Tax Register, which have not been acted upon. Relying on Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala (2020) (4) KLT 448) and District Collector, Ernakulam v. Fr. Jose Uppani (2020) (4) KLT 612), the petitioner contends that once a valid enabling order under Rule 6(2) KLUO is issued, earlier BTR entries become redundant and Revenue officials are obliged to re-assess under Section 6A of the KLT Act after verifying the genuineness of the permission.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend Ext.P3 (2006) requires verification of its authenticity and the current land status before any re-assessment. They submit that the present status of the land needs to be ascertained and the veracity of the permission under the KLUO must be checked; hence the Tahsildar has not passed orders on Ext.P4. They argue that the court should not direct re-assessment without proper verification and current facts, and that the cited precedents require confirmation of facts before extending the re-assessment obligation.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala and others2020 (4) KLT 448PositiveThis Court relied on Mary Abraham to hold that an enabling order under Rule 6(2) of the KLUO makes earlier BTR entries redundant and obliges a fresh assessment under Section 6A after verifying the permission.
District Collector, Ernakulam and others v. Fr. Jose Uppani and others2020 (4) KLT 612PositiveDivision Bench extended the principle to cases where enabling orders pre-date the Section 27A cut-off, directing consideration of subsequent KLT Act applications.

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 Varghese Alukka v. State 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. 26572 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` VARGHESE ALUKKA AGED 62 YEARS ``` ``` KIZHAKKE CHALAKKUDY, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680 307. ``` ## **`BY ADVS.`** ## **`C.K.SREEJITH KOZHIPURATH PRASEETHA GOPALAKRISHNAN`** ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 003.`** - **`2 THE LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS AGRICULTURE OFFICER, KRISHI BHAVAN, CHALAKKUDY, PIN – 680 307.`** - **`3 TAHASILDAR CHALAKKUDY, TALUK OFFICE, MUNICIPAL TOWN HALL COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, OLD HWY, CHALAKKUDY, PIN – 680 307.`** - **`4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680307`** - **`5 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CIVIL STATION ANNEX, CHEMMANDA ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 121.`** - **`6 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER 1ST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 003.`** W.P.(C) No.26572 of 2023 : 2 : ``` 7THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001. ``` ## **`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: ``` W.P.(C) No.26572 of 2023 : 3 : ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 14[th] day of August, 2023 The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the omission of the 3[rd] respondent-Tahsildar in entertaining an application submitted by the petitioner for re-assessment of rate of Basic Tax on land and for making necessary entries in the Basic Tax Register. 2. The petitioner is owner of 9.36 Ares of property in Survey Nos.383/1-20 and 699/1-12 of East Chalakkudy Village in Thrissur District. The property in question was purchased in the year 2007. 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 non-agricultural 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. W.P.(C) No.26572 of 2023 : 4 : 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though Ext.P3 order was passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 in the year 2006, the land of the petitioner is not re-assessed for fixing rate of Basic Tax and the property of the petitioner is still described as paddy land in the Revenue records. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 application invoking Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 seeking to re-assess the rate of 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 petitioner has 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 petitioner in the writ petition. It is submitted that Ext.P3 proceedings are of the year 2006. The veracity and the genuineness of Ext.P3 proceedings under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 W.P.(C) No.26572 of 2023 : 5 : 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 petitioner 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.26572 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 nature of the land of the petitioner 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 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 petitioner. W.P.(C) No.26572 of 2023 : 7 : The writ petition is therefore allowed. Ext.P6 communication is set aside. The 3[rd] respondent-Tahasildar is directed to consider Ext.P4 Form-A application submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of one month. **Sd/N. NAGARESH JUDGE** AMR ## W.P.(C) No.26572 of 2023 : 8 : ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26572/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 15.2.2007 EXECUTED IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER. ``` ``` Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DARED 26/4/2023. ``` - **`Exhibit P3`** ``` TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K. DIS 9583/06/D1 DATED 18/10/2006 PASSED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. ``` - **`Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH FORM A APPLICATION.`** ``` Exhibit P5 ``` - **`THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION OF DATA BANK LIST OF KIZHAKKE CHALAKKUDY VILLAGE PREPARED BY LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE, CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY AS E3-106686/2020 DT. 22/2/2021.`** - **`Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 19/7/2023.`** ``` Exhibit P7 ``` ``` THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C) 19469/2023 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT DT. 5/7/2023. ```